DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation and Contingent Limitations
The pending claims contain various conditional limitations which include:
Claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 11:
(1) “processor . . . configured to . . . determine whether to avoid the target object based on a result of comparing the power information with a threshold power value,
based on the power information being less than the threshold power value, control the robot cleaner to travel to avoid the target object,
based on the power information being greater than or equal to the threshold power value, acquire feature information of the target object based on the sensing data . . .
based on the type information including a predetermined type, control the robot cleaner to travel to avoid the target object, and
based on the type information not including the predetermined type, control the robot cleaner to travel based on a movement path for moving the target object to a target location.
Claim 2 and similarly recited in claim 12:
(2) “processor is further configured to:
based on the type information not including the predetermined type, control the robot cleaner to travel according to a test mode where the robot cleaner comes into contact with the target object at a predetermined acceleration, and
based on the robot cleaner moving the target object while traveling in the test mode, determine the movement path for moving the target object to the target location
Claim 3 and similarly recited in claim 13:
(3) “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: based on the robot cleaner being unable to move the target object while traveling in the test mode, control the robot cleaner to travel to avoid the target object”
Claim 5 and similarly recited in claim 15:
(4) “processor is further configured to:
based on the height of the target object being equal to or greater than a threshold height, identify the type information as including the predetermined type.
Claim 6 and similarly recited in claim 16:
(5) “processor is further configured to:
based on the mass of the target object being greater than or equal to a threshold mass, identify the type information as including the predetermined type.
Claim 7 and similarly recited in claim 17:
(6) “processor is further configured to: based on the texture of the target object being a glass texture, identify the type information as comprising the predetermined type.
Claim 8 and similarly recited in claim 18:
(7) “processor is further configured to:
based on the power information being less than a threshold power level, control the robot cleaner to travel to move the target object to a temporary location,
based on the target object being moved to the temporary location, control the robot cleaner to travel to a charging location without the target object,
upon completion of a charging operation, change the first movement path to a second movement path to move the target object from the temporary location to the target location and travel based on the second movement path.
Claim 10 and similarly recited in claim 20:
(8) processor is further configured to:
based on the type information does not including the predetermined type, control the robot cleaner to travel to clean the movement path without the target object, and
upon completion of cleaning the movement path, control the robot cleaner to travel to move the target object to the target location along the movement path.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See MPEP 2111.04, II. Accordingly, a structure capable of performing the function of the above cited claim limitations (1) – (8) is sufficient to disclose the above cited claim limitations. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). For example, for limitations (1)-(8) a structure, such as a processor recited in Applicants specification and in the prior art below, capable of performing the functions following the underlined portions above, is sufficient to disclose the above cited claim limitations.
In addition, limitations (1) – (8) above either computer processing steps carried out by a computing device or method steps that required a first step if a first condition happens and a second step if a second condition happens.
With respect to conditional limitations in such cases, MPEP 2111.04 guides
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
Accordingly, Ex Parte Schulhauser applies to limitations (1) – (8). See MPEP 2111.04, II “contingent claims” ("[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed . . . [t]herefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);").
For example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 does not require either “control the robot cleaner to travel to avoid the target object” or “acquire feature information of the target object based on the sensing data”, “acquire type information of the target object based on the feature information”, or “control the robot cleaner to travel based on a movement path for moving the target object to a target location” since the conditional limitations are not actually required to occur (i.e., the claim does not require the power level be above or below a threshold power level, and does not require type information to include or not include a predetermined type).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-8, 10, 12-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends, or for reciting a limitation that replaces or omits a limitation in a parent claim, even though it placed further limitations on the remaining elements or added still other elements. See MPEP 608.01(n), section III “test for proper dependency” (“a claim in dependent form shall contain . . . (i) a reference to a claim previously set forth, and (ii) then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed . . . if claim 1 recites the combination of elements A, B, C, and D, a claim reciting the structure of claim 1 in which D was omitted or replaced by E would not be a proper dependent claim, even though it placed further limitations on the remaining elements or added still other elements.”)
Each of claims 2-8, 10, 12-18, and 20 either consist entirely of a contingent limitation, wherein the limitations are not required since the claim does not require the condition occurs, they further limit an optional limitation from a parent claim and/or they recite a limitation that replaces or omits a limitation in a parent claim (i.e., claims 3 and 13, consist entirely of a contingent limitation wherein the claims do not require the cleaner is traveling in test mode and does not require the cleaner is unable to move the target object; claims 4 and 14 merely further limit on optional limitation since “the feature information” recited in claim 1 is not required to be acquired, i.e., claim 1 does not require power to be greater than a threshold power value).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 1 and 11, the limitation “acquire type information . . . the type information including a predetermined type . . . the type information not including the predetermined type” is unclear and indefinite since it is unclear how the same type information can both include and not include the same predetermined type information. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are at least rejected on the basis of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-12, 14-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 20200205629 to Hong et al. (Hong) in view of U.S. 20200329935 to Park et al. (Park)
With respect to claims 1 and 11, Hong discloses a robot cleaner comprising:
a sensor, at least one memory storing one or more instructions and at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor, by executing the one or more instructions, is configured to:
(cleaning robot 10 in various figures; ¶ 83 “cleaning robot 10 may move in close contact with the object 52 while measuring distance information to the object 52 in real time, by using a laser imaging detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor, an ultrasound sensor, or a position sensitive device (PSD) sensor; 88; 105 capturing an image of the object 57 with a camera or by using a distance sensor (for example, a depth sensor, a LIDAR sensor, an ultrasound sensor, or an IR stereo sensor)”)
identify a plurality of objects based on sensing data acquired through the sensor, identify a target object located on a travel surface of the robot cleaner among the plurality of objects,
(¶¶ 148 cleaning robot 10 may obtain identification information of an object by using a result of capturing an image of an object or detecting the object. The cleaning robot 10 may obtain, as the identification information of the object, a name of the object, a type of the object, or an attribute of the object; 105 cleaning robot 10 may identify the object 57 . . . using an image obtained by capturing an image of the object 57 with a camera; 119 object of the same or similar shape as the object 58 of FIG. 9 is identified; claim 11)
acquire power information indicating remaining power of the robot cleaner and comparing the power information with a threshold power value
(¶ 173 “The power supplier 1080 supplies power required to drive the cleaning robot 10. For example, the power supplier 1080 may be implemented as a battery capable of being charged and discharged. When remaining power of the cleaning robot 10 is below a pre-set level or when a task is completed, the processor 1040 may control the driver 1070 to move to a charging station”)
determine whether to avoid the target object and control the robot cleaner to travel to avoid the target object,
(FIG. 5, a detected object 51 is identified and control options are determined including 511-516 with various options depicted in 6A-7C and corresponding description; different control options 511-516 described in ¶¶ 77 – 99, i.e., avoid object, push object, etc.)
based on the power information being greater than or equal to the threshold power value, acquire feature information of the target object based on the sensing data,
(i.e., robot cleaner continually checks power, unless power below threshold, object detection continues, if below the robot diverts to charging station ¶ 173 “The power supplier 1080 supplies power required to drive the cleaning robot 10. For example, the power supplier 1080 may be implemented as a battery capable of being charged and discharged. When remaining power of the cleaning robot 10 is below a pre-set level or when a task is completed, the processor 1040 may control the driver 1070 to move to a charging station”)
acquire type information of the target object based on the feature information, based on the type information including a predetermined type, control the robot cleaner to travel to avoid the target object, and based on the type information not including the predetermined type, control the robot cleaner to travel based on a movement path for moving the target object to a target location.
(FIG. 5, a detected object 51 is identified and control options are determined including 511-516 with various options depicted in 6A-7C and corresponding description; different control options 511-516 described in ¶¶ 77 – 99, including avoiding 511-513 described in ¶¶ 77-92 and including moving the target object to a target location 514-515, ¶¶ 93-130; i.e., target location can be a designated area ¶ 122 “designated areas to which objects are to be moved” such as shown in FIG. 8B, an identified power cord is moved to as close to the wall as possible as shown in FIG. 8C and corresponding description)
Although Hong discloses determining a power level and comparing it against a threshold, Hong fails to explicitly disclose the power level has influence over whether the target object should be avoided or not.
Park, from the same field of endeavor, also discloses a cleaning robot (101) including a power source (122) wherein the system determines whether power level is below a threshold power value (210, FIG. 2; ¶ 59 residual capacity of the battery is a predetermined threshold or less; 73 robotic cleaner may identify the residual capacity of the battery before executing cleaning work. For example, the robotic cleaner may identify the residual capacity of the battery when receiving a cleaning work execution command or when executing a predetermined cleaning work)
determined whether to avoid a high power consumption task (i.e., an object such as a cleaning zone) based on a result of comparing the power information with a threshold power value based on the power information being less than the threshold power value, control the robot cleaner to travel to avoid a high power consumption task (i.e., an target object such as a cleaning zone) (i.e., avoid a first cleaning zone; ¶¶ 80, 90; i.e., avoid current task and charge battery, i.e., 660, FIG. 6; ¶¶ 72-75, 80, 90, 100, 105-111, 149, FIG. 6, below power threshold avoid area of first zone cleaning work to charge batter at 660, above power threshold, clean first zone; 155-157, 173-174, 235, 240, claim 3)
and perform a relatively higher power task based on based on the power information being greater than or equal to the threshold power value (FIG. 6, 620, “No”, executing cleaning work; ¶¶ 72-75, 80, 90, 100, 105-111, 149, FIG. 6, below power threshold avoid area of first zone cleaning work to charge batter at 660, above power threshold, clean first zone; 155-157, 173-174, 235, 240, claim 3)
Accordingly, in view of the combined teachings of Hong and Park above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to avoid the higher power task which would occur if the target object was engaged and not avoided (i.e., it may need to be moved, see Hong FIG. 6D) when the power is below threshold and perform a higher power task, i.e., engage the object by initially acquiring feature information of the target object based on the sensing data when the power is above threshold (i.e., Hong 514, 515, FIG. 5) in order to avoid using too much power such that the cleaner dies before recharging, decrease overall cleaning time and increase power efficiency (Park, ¶¶ 5, 13 provide a robotic cleaner and a control method thereof that are capable of solving the problem that causes a robotic cleaner to stop before reaching a charging device due to the discharge of a battery).
With respect to claims 2 and 12, Hong in view of Park disclose
based on the type information not including the predetermined type, control the robot cleaner to travel according to a test mode1 where the robot cleaner comes into contact with the target object at a predetermined acceleration, and based on the robot cleaner moving the target object while traveling in the test mode, determine the movement path for moving the target object to the target location, and control the robot cleaner to travel based on a movement mode of moving the target object along the movement path.
(Hong, i.e., objects are classified as movable or unmovable, / alternatively the object is not a breakable predetermined type which is not pushed (i.e., ¶ 86, FIG. 6B) i.e., 53, 6B is unmovable, 55 and 56 are movable and moved to a target location along a movement path under the control of the robot cleaner, i.e., as shown for object 56 in FIG. 7B, object 57 in FIG. 8C and object 55 in 6D, “move to designated area” Fig. 11; and corresponding descriptions; ¶¶ 58, 68-72, 75-76, 78-100, i.e., ¶ 100 target location can be designated area described therein; ¶ 107 determine movement path)
With respect to claims 4 and 14, Hong in view of Park disclose wherein the feature information comprises at least one of:
size information of the target object,
mass information of the target object, or
texture information of the target object, and
wherein the type information comprises information regarding a possibility of moving the target object.
(Hong, FIG. 5- 8D and corresponding description where possibility of moving depends on determined object type, ¶¶ 69-72, 75, 84-86, 90, 94-98, 107, 121, claim 11)
With respect to claims 5 and 15, Hong in view of Park disclose wherein the size information comprises a height of the target object, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
based on the height of the target object being equal to or greater than a threshold height, identify the type information as including the predetermined type.
(Hong, ¶ 69 target object threshold height determination; 75 determine task based on determine object height; 94, 98)
With respect to claims 7 and 17, Hong in view of Park disclose
wherein the texture information comprises a texture of the target object, and
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
based on the texture of the target object being a glass texture, identify the type information as comprising the predetermined type.
(Hong, ¶¶ 69-72, 75, 82-86 if the object is glass type object, avoid the object, 90, 94-98, 107, 121, claim 11, FIG. 6B glass object avoided)
With respect to claims 8 and 18, as noted above in the contingent limitation section and the 112(d) rejection, the claims do not include further patentable limitations. Accordingly, Hong in view of Park disclose all required limitations of claims 8 and 18.
In addition, the processor structure Hong in view of Park is at least capable of a configuration to, based on the power information being less than a threshold power level, control the robot cleaner to travel to move the target object to a temporary location, travel to a charging location without the target object, upon completion of charging operation, change the first movement path to a second movement path to move the target object from the temporary location to the target location, and travel based on the second movement path.
(i.e., Hong, processor 1040, FIG. 13A-14, modules in 15A-15B, ¶ 173 “The power supplier 1080 supplies power required to drive the cleaning robot 10. For example, the power supplier 1080 may be implemented as a battery capable of being charged and discharged. When remaining power of the cleaning robot 10 is below a pre-set level or when a task is completed, the processor 1040 may control the driver 1070 to move to a charging station”; moving objects, i.e., objects are classified as movable or unmovable, / alternatively the object is not a breakable predetermined type which is not pushed (i.e., ¶ 86, FIG. 6B) i.e., 53, 6B is unmovable, 55 and 56 are movable and moved to a target location along a movement path under the control of the robot cleaner, i.e., as shown for object 56 in FIG. 7B, object 57 in FIG. 8C and object 55 in 6D, “move to designated area” Fig. 11; and corresponding descriptions; ¶¶ 58, 68-72, 75-76, 78-100, i.e., ¶ 100 target location can be designated area described therein; ¶ 107 determine movement path)
With respect to claims 9 and 19, Hong in view of Park disclose the at least one processor is further configured to:
identify a movement type corresponding to the power information from among a plurality of movement types stored in the at least one memory, and
determine the target location based on the movement type.
(i.e., Hong discloses various movement types with corresponding target locations, i.e., tasks 1-6, FIG. 5, i.e., FIG. 6D task of moving object 55 to target location as shown, FIG. 7B moving object 56, FIG. 8C object 57, wherein the movement type changes if there is a lower power level, to a movement to a charging station, i.e., ¶ 173 “The power supplier 1080 supplies power required to drive the cleaning robot 10. For example, the power supplier 1080 may be implemented as a battery capable of being charged and discharged. When remaining power of the cleaning robot 10 is below a pre-set level or when a task is completed, the processor 1040 may control the driver 1070 to move to a charging station”)
(Park 210, FIG. 2; ¶ 59 residual capacity of the battery is a predetermined threshold or less; 73 robotic cleaner may identify the residual capacity of the battery before executing cleaning work. For example, the robotic cleaner may identify the residual capacity of the battery when receiving a cleaning work execution command or when executing a predetermined cleaning work, ¶¶ 80, 90; i.e., avoid current task and charge battery, i.e., 660, FIG. 6; ¶¶ 72-75, 80, 90, 100, 105-111, 149, FIG. 6, below power threshold avoid area of first zone cleaning work to charge batter at 660, above power threshold, clean first zone; 155-157, 173-174, 235, 240, claim 3, FIG. 6, 620, “No”, executing cleaning work; ¶¶ 72-75, 80, 90, 100, 105-111, 149, FIG. 6, below power threshold avoid area of first zone cleaning work to charge batter at 660, above power threshold, clean first zone; 155-157, 173-174, 235, 240, claim 3)
With respect to claims 10 and 20, as noted above in the contingent limitation section and the 112(d) rejection, the claims do not include further patentable limitations. Accordingly, Hong in view of Park disclose all required limitations of claims 10 and 20.
In addition, Hong in view of Park disclose the at least one processor is further configured to, based on the type information does not including the predetermined type, control the robot cleaner to travel to clean the movement path without the target object, and upon completion of cleaning the movement path, control the robot cleaner to travel to move the target object to the target location along the movement path.
(i.e., Hong discloses cleaning the movement path without the target object, 511-513, FIG. 6A, 6C, 7C, 8D, etc. and moving target object along movement path 6D, 7B, 8C, 707, FIG. 11, etc.)
(Hong, i.e., objects are classified as movable or unmovable, / alternatively the object is not a breakable predetermined type which is not pushed (i.e., ¶ 86, FIG. 6B) i.e., 53, 6B is unmovable, 55 and 56 are movable and moved to a target location along a movement path under the control of the robot cleaner, i.e., as shown for object 56 in FIG. 7B, object 57 in FIG. 8C and object 55 in 6D, “move to designated area” Fig. 11; and corresponding descriptions; ¶¶ 58, 68-72, 75-76, 78-100, i.e., ¶ 100 target location can be designated area described therein; ¶ 107 determine movement path)
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 20200205629 to Hong et al. (Hong) in view of U.S. 20200329935 to Park et al. (Park) and further in view of KR 20200003312 to Jeon et al. (Jeon) (translation attached)
With respect to claims 3 and 13, Hong in view of Park fail to disclose all limitations. Jeon, from the same field of endeavor, discloses a processor is further configured to: based on the robot cleaner being unable to move the target object while traveling in the test mode, control the robot cleaner to travel to avoid the target object (Fig. 8B, ¶¶ 93 – 98 control module 250 may be executed in the obstacle moving mode and check whether the obstacle n2 is moved by the obstacle moving image dm input from the camera . . . the obstacle moving image dm does not change for a predetermined time, the control module 250 determines that the obstacle n2 does not move, and switches the obstacle moving mode to the avoiding mode, as described above with reference to FIG. 7.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to implement the process of claims 3 and 13, as disclosed by Jeon above, in the system of Hong in view of Park in order to increase cleaning efficiency (Jeon, ¶80 “recognizes an obstacle located in a moving path of the robot cleaner 100, determines whether the obstacle satisfies a set moving condition, and operates in an avoidance mode or an obstacle moving mode. There is an advantage that can increase the cleaning efficiency.”).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 20200205629 to Hong et al. (Hong) in view of U.S. 20200329935 to Park et al. (Park) and further in view of US 20250194878 to Carswell et al. (Carwswell)
With respect to claims 6 and 16, Hong in view of Park disclose various target object attribute information compared with a threshold to identify type information (Hong, ¶¶ 69, 75, 94, 98), but fails to disclose the attribute is mass.
Carswell, from the same field of endeavor, discloses determining a target object attribute includes the object mass (¶¶ 15, data processing system may comprise a dust particle size determination module which is configured to determine the size and/or mass of the dust particles” 21-22, 25, 44, 54-56, 117, 120, 122, claim 8). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to implement the teachings of Carswell in the system of Hong in view of Park such that the threshold determination is based on a mass determination in order to provide a more efficient vacuum cleaning mapping/ route / prioritizing schedule and power consumption planning (i.e., Carswell FIG. 12, 1202 plan cleaning based on dust distribution map; ¶¶ 3, 19, 21 total mass of dust particles which is of interest for each cleaning region, 25, 27, 77 high mass/ energy required zones first, 78-79 operating parameter may comprise selecting a power level to be supplied to the motor when the robotic vacuum cleaner is in that location. In line with previous disclosure, this may comprise either selecting from a continuous range of power values, or from a predetermined (discrete) set of power values. For completeness, we note that a higher power is preferably selected in a region with a relatively higher amount of dust than, and a lower power is preferably selected in a region with a relatively lower amount of dust. This ensure that the dustiest regions are cleaned with the greatest suction power.). In addition, the cumulative mass information gathered may provide cumulative work required for a given area, which can be stored in memory for future cleaning plans in view of residual energy (¶ 28 mass information stored in memory).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J MALKOWSKI whose telephone number is (313)446-4854. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 313-446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KENNETH J MALKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
1 No limiting definition is provided in the specification for “test mode”.