DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
Figures 6A-6F should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 11-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0141330 to Konada et al. (hereinafter: “Konada”).
With respect to claim 1, Konada teaches a suspension module (apparent from at least Figs. 1-5) for a vehicle (10), comprising: a plurality of suspensions (e.g., 18, 20 and 22 together) operably connected to a plurality of wheels (16, 56) of the vehicle (apparent from at least Figs. 1-3 in view of at least ¶ 0020-0021); a sensor unit (e.g., 3 and/or 26 and/or 29) configured to sense a state of the vehicle and/or a state of a road surface [as discussed by at least ¶ 0028-0030, a preview sensor (road surface state detector) 3 of the definable “sensor unit” is structured to perform functions to detect a condition of a road surface 100 (e.g., “state of a road surface”); additionally or alternatively, as discussed by at least ¶ 0021-0022, a wheel speed sensor (vehicle speed sensor) 26 of the definable “sensor unit” is structured to perform functions to detect a wheel speed V of a corresponding one of the wheels 16, 56 (e.g., “state of the vehicle”); additionally or alternatively, as discussed by at least ¶ 0027, an acceleration sensor 29 of the definable “sensor unit” is structured to perform functions to detect an acceleration of a vehicle body 12 along a stroke axis of the damper 22 (e.g., “state of the vehicle”); because sense a state of the vehicle and sense a state of a road surface are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives]; and a controller (24) configured to identify information on the state of the road surface, on which a preceding wheel of the wheels having an movement line overlapped with a movement path of a following wheel of the wheels passes [as depicted by at least Figs. 1-7 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0020-0022, 0028-0030, 0032-0033, 0051 & 0064-0065, the electronic control unit (ECU) 24 is structured to perform functions to identify information on the condition of the road surface 100 when the vehicle 10 travels upon the road surface 100, where a first one (e.g., of a left side of the vehicle 10) (e.g., “preceding wheel”) of the front wheels 16 travels upon the road surface so as to include an apparent definable movement line (e.g., corresponding to a center of the first one of the front wheels 16) which overlaps with an apparent definable movement path (e.g., corresponding to a width of a first one of the rear wheels 56) of the first one (e.g., of the left side of the vehicle 10) (e.g., “following wheel”) of the rear wheels 56, including when the vehicle travels upon the road surface 100 in a straight line direction], and control one of the suspensions operably connected to the following wheel using the information on the state of the road surface on which the preceding wheel passes [as depicted by at least Figs. 1-7 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0020-0022, 0028-0030, 0032-0033, 0035-0039, 0051 & 0064-0070, the ECU 24 is structured to perform functions to control at least a suspension stroke (e.g., by adjusting a length of the damper 22 of the suspension) of the first one of the rear wheels 56, via a rear wheel control part 243, based on a determination result of a preview control success determination part 242, using the information on the condition of the road surface 100 on which the first one of the front wheels 16 passes when the vehicle 10 travels upon the road surface 100, including when the vehicle travels upon the road surface 100 in the straight line direction].
With respect to claim 2, Konada teaches the suspension module of claim 1, wherein one or more of the plurality of wheels are configured to be independently drivable and steerable [claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to particular structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, and 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 (e.g., see: MPEP 2114_II), and “wherein one or more of the plurality of wheels are configured to be independently drivable and steerable” only necessarily further defines the “vehicle” of the preamble recitation of intended use or purpose “for a vehicle” in claim 1 in view of “a plurality of suspensions operably connected to a plurality of wheels of the vehicle” (emphasis added) in claim 1, without necessarily further defining the claimed “suspension module” (or an element thereof), such that “wherein one or more of the plurality of wheels are configured to be independently drivable and steerable” merely sets forth the manner in which the claimed “suspension module” is intended to be employed and does not differentiate the “suspension module” from the prior art under a broadest reasonable interpretation].
With respect to claim 3, Konada teaches the suspension module of claim 1, wherein the sensor unit includes a wheel vertical acceleration sensor and/or a wheel speed sensor (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1; because a wheel vertical acceleration sensor and a wheel speed sensor are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives).
With respect to claim 11, Konada teaches a method of controlling a suspension module for a vehicle, the method comprising: identifying information on a state of a road surface on which a preceding wheel of the vehicle passes using a sensor unit; and controlling a suspension operably connected to a following wheel having a movement path that overlaps with a movement line of the preceding wheel using the identified information on the state of the road surface on which the preceding wheel passes (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
With respect to claim 12, Konada teaches the method of claim 11, wherein one or more of the plurality of wheels are configured to be independently drivable and steerable [claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to particular structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and “wherein one or more of the plurality of wheels are configured to be independently drivable and steerable” only necessarily further defines the “vehicle” of the preamble recitation of intended use or purpose “for a vehicle” in claim 11, without necessarily further defining the claimed method (or a step thereof), does not necessarily require a step to be performed, and does not necessarily further define any previously introduced step of the claimed method, such that “wherein one or more of the plurality of wheels are configured to be independently drivable and steerable” does not necessarily further limit the scope of the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation].
With respect to claim 13, Konada teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the sensor unit includes a wheel vertical acceleration sensor and/or a wheel speed sensor (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 3).
With respect to claim 14, Konada teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the controlling of the suspension operably connected to the following wheel is performed when the state of the road surface sensed by the sensor unit is identified as an off-road state [claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and 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 (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II), and “controlling of the suspension operably connected to the following wheel is performed” would not necessarily be performed as part of the claimed method at times including when the condition “when the state of the road surface sensed by the sensor unit is identified as an off-road state” is not met during performing of the claimed method (e.g., when the state of the road surface sensed by the sensor unit is not identified as the off-road state, such as when the state of the road surface sensed by the sensor unit is identified as an on-road state, such as when the vehicle is not does not travel off-road during performing of the claimed method), such that “wherein the controlling of the suspension operably connected to the following wheel is performed when the state of the road surface sensed by the sensor unit is identified as an off-road state” does not necessarily further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation—to avoid the aforementioned interpretation of claim 14, one suggestion is to amend the method of claim 14 to further include, as a process step, something like: --identifying the state of the road surface sensed by the sensor unit as an off-road surface--].
With respect to claim 16, Konada teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the controlling of the suspension operably connected to the following wheel is performed when the vehicle moves in an oblique driving mode, a crab driving mode, or a rotating driving mode [claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and 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 (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II), and “controlling of the suspension operably connected to the following wheel is performed” would not necessarily be performed as part of the claimed method at times including when the condition “when the vehicle moves in an oblique driving mode, a crab driving mode, or a rotating driving mode” is not met during performing of the claimed method (e.g., when the vehicle does not move in any of the oblique driving mode, the crab driving mode, and the rotating driving mode, such as when the vehicle only differently moves in other driving mode(s) during performing of the claimed method), such that “wherein the controlling of the suspension operably connected to the following wheel is performed when the vehicle moves in an oblique driving mode, a crab driving mode, or a rotating driving mode” does not necessarily further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation—to avoid the aforementioned interpretation of claim 16, one suggestion is to amend the method of claim 16 to further include, as a process step, something like: --identifying that the vehicle moves in an oblique driving mode, a crab driving mode, or a rotating driving mode--; because an oblique driving mode, a crab driving mode, and a rotating driving mode are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives].
With respect to claim 17, Konada teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the controlling of the suspension operably connected to the following wheel comprises, when the vehicle moves obliquely in a left front direction, controlling a suspension connected to a right front wheel or a left rear wheel using information on a left front wheel and controlling a suspension connected to a right rear wheel using information on the right front wheel or the left rear wheel [“controlling a suspension connected to a right front wheel or a left rear wheel using information on a left front wheel and controlling a suspension connected to a right rear wheel using information on the right front wheel or the left rear wheel” would not necessarily be performed as part of the claimed method at times including when the condition “when the vehicle moves obliquely in a left front direction” is not met during performing of the claimed method (e.g., when the vehicle does not move obliquely in the left front direction during performing of the claimed method, such as when the vehicle does not move in the oblique driving mode during performing of the claimed method, such as when the condition “when the vehicle moves in an oblique driving mode, a crab driving mode, or a rotating driving mode” of claim 16 is not met during performing of the claimed method), such that “wherein the controlling of the suspension operably connected to the following wheel comprises, when the vehicle moves obliquely in a left front direction, controlling a suspension connected to a right front wheel or a left rear wheel using information on a left front wheel and controlling a suspension connected to a right rear wheel using information on the right front wheel or the left rear wheel” does not necessarily further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 16); because controlling a suspension connected to a right front wheel and controlling a suspension connected to a left rear wheel are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives; because using information on the right front wheel and using information on the left rear wheel are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives].
With respect to claim 18, Konada teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the controlling of the suspension operably connected to the following wheel comprises: when the vehicle moves to left in the crab driving mode, controlling a suspension connected to a right front wheel using information on a left front wheel and a suspension connected to a right rear wheel using information on a left rear wheel, and when the vehicle moves to right in the crab driving mode, controlling a suspension connected to the left front wheel using information on the right front wheel and a suspension connected to the left rear wheel using information on the right rear wheel [“controlling a suspension connected to a right front wheel using information on a left front wheel and a suspension connected to a right rear wheel using information on a left rear wheel” would not necessarily be performed as part of the claimed method at times including when the condition “when the vehicle moves to left in the crab driving mode” is not met during performing of the claimed method (e.g., when the vehicle does not move to left in the crab driving mode during performing of the claimed method, such as when the vehicle does not move in the crab driving mode during performing of the claimed method, such as when the condition “when the vehicle moves in an oblique driving mode, a crab driving mode, or a rotating driving mode” of claim 16 is not met during performing of the claimed method), and “controlling a suspension connected to the left front wheel using information on the right front wheel and a suspension connected to the left rear wheel using information on the right rear wheel” would not necessarily be performed as part of the claimed method at times including when the condition “when the vehicle moves to right in the crab driving mode” is not met during performing of the claimed method (e.g., when the vehicle does not move to right in the crab driving mode during performing of the claimed method, such as when the vehicle does not move in the crab driving mode during performing of the claimed method, such as when the condition “when the vehicle moves in an oblique driving mode, a crab driving mode, or a rotating driving mode” of claim 16 is not met during performing of the claimed method), such that “wherein the controlling of the suspension operably connected to the following wheel comprises: when the vehicle moves to left in the crab driving mode, controlling a suspension connected to a right front wheel using information on a left front wheel and a suspension connected to a right rear wheel using information on a left rear wheel, and when the vehicle moves to right in the crab driving mode, controlling a suspension connected to the left front wheel using information on the right front wheel and a suspension connected to the left rear wheel using information on the right rear wheel” does not necessarily further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 16)].
With respect to claim 19, Konada teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the controlling of the suspension operably connected to the following wheel comprises, when the vehicle rotates in place, controlling a suspension connected to an (n+1)-th wheel using information on an n-th wheel based on a rotating direction of the vehicle (n is a natural number) [“controlling a suspension connected to an (n+1)-th wheel using information on an n-th wheel based on a rotating direction of the vehicle (n is a natural number)” would not necessarily be performed as part of the claimed method at times including when the condition “when the vehicle rotates in place” is not met during performing of the claimed method (e.g., when the vehicle does not rotate in place during performing of the claimed method, such as when the vehicle does not move in the rotating driving mode during performing of the claimed method, such as when the condition “when the vehicle moves in an oblique driving mode, a crab driving mode, or a rotating driving mode” of claim 16 is not met during performing of the claimed method), such that “wherein the controlling of the suspension operably connected to the following wheel comprises, when the vehicle rotates in place, controlling a suspension connected to an (n+1)-th wheel using information on an n-th wheel based on a rotating direction of the vehicle (n is a natural number)” does not necessarily further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 16)].
With respect to claim 20, Konada teaches the method of claim 19, further comprising calculating a time in which the (n+1)-th wheel reaches a position on which the n-th wheel passes using a wheel speed [“calculating a time in which the (n+1)-th wheel reaches a position on which the n-th wheel passes using a wheel speed” appears to only further define “wherein the controlling of the suspension operably connected to the following wheel comprises, when the vehicle rotates in place, controlling a suspension connected to an (n+1)-th wheel using information on an n-th wheel based on a rotating direction of the vehicle (n is a natural number)” in claim 19 (which does not necessarily further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 19), such that “calculating a time in which the (n+1)-th wheel reaches a position on which the n-th wheel passes using a wheel speed” does not necessarily further limit the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 16)].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konada in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0074389 to Kim (hereinafter: “Kim”).
With respect to claim 2, Konada teaches the suspension module of claim 1; however, Konada appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether one or more of the plurality of wheels [of the vehicle] are configured to be independently drivable and steerable. Even so, as discussed in detail above with respect to the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), Konada teaches each and every limitation of the “suspension module” of claim 2 so as to anticipate the claim under a broadest reasonable interpretation because “wherein one or more of the plurality of wheels are configured to be independently drivable and steerable” merely sets forth the manner in which the claimed “suspension module” is intended to be employed and does not differentiate the “suspension module” from the prior art under a broadest reasonable interpretation. However, in such a case where Applicant is able to persuasively argue that inclusion of “wherein one or more of the plurality of wheels are configured to be independently drivable and steerable” necessarily further limits the claimed “suspension module” and/or in such a case where “wherein one or more of the plurality of wheels are configured to be independently drivable and steerable” is differently interpreted as further limiting the claimed “suspension module,” it is also noted that Kim teaches an analogous vehicle having a plurality of wheels, where one or more of the plurality of wheels are configured to be independently drivable and steerable (as depicted by at least Figs. 1-4 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0002-0007, 0033-0037, 0042 & 0044-0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the vehicle intended for use together with the suspension module of Konada with the teachings of Kim, if even necessary, such that one or more of the plurality of wheels [of the vehicle] are configured to be independently drivable and steerable to beneficially improve efficiency of power use and/or reduce vehicle weight and/or improve maneuverability of the vehicle at low speeds and/or improve stability in driving at high speeds (as discussed by at least ¶ 0004-0005 of Kim).
With respect to claim 12, Konada modified supra teaches the method of claim 11, wherein one or more of the plurality of wheels are configured to be independently drivable and steerable (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 2 and 11).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konada in view of KR 20220087650 A to Han et al. (hereinafter: “Han”).
With respect to claim 4, Konada teaches the suspension module of claim 1; however, Konada appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the controller is configured to control the one of the suspensions operably connected to the following wheel when the state of the road surface sensed by the sensor unit is identified as an off-road state, although Konada discloses detecting a height of the road surface in front of each of the front wheels via the sensor unit and to control the one of the suspensions operably connected to the following wheel based on the height of the road surface sensed by the sensor unit (as depicted by at least Figs. 1-7 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0020-0022, 0028-0030, 0032-0033, 0035-0039, 0051 & 0064-0070, and as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
Han teaches sensing a state of a road surface, by a sensor unit, including to detect a height displacement of the road surface and identify the state of the road surface sensed by the sensor unit as an off-road state based on the height displacement of the road surface (“The road surface sensing unit 10 may detect a height displacement of the road surface on which the vehicle travels. A large displacement of the road surface may be detected in an off-road with stones or gravel, and a small displacement in the height of the road surface may be detected in an on-road such as a highway or a road in the city”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the suspension module of Konada with the teachings of Han, if even necessary, such that the controller is configured to control the one of the suspensions operably connected to the following wheel when the state of the road surface sensed by the sensor unit is identified as an off-road state because Han demonstrates that relatively large road surface height corresponds to an off-road state.
With respect to claim 14, Konada modified supra teaches method of claim 11, wherein the controlling of the suspension operably connected to the following wheel is performed when the state of the road surface sensed by the sensor unit is identified as an off-road state (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 4).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konada in view of JP 2003-095122 A to Ota et al. (hereinafter: “Ota”).
With respect to claim 5, Konada teaches the suspension module of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to sense, by the sensor, unit, a speed of each of the wheels of the vehicle as a vehicle speed (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1); however, Konada appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the controller is configured to estimate movement paths of the wheels of the vehicle based on a steering angle and a speed of each of the wheels of the vehicle sensed by the sensor unit.
Ota teaches estimating, by a controller, movement paths of wheels of a vehicle based on a steering angle and a vehicle speed sensed by a sensor unit (Ota discloses that “The display device 40 displays the steering angle control status of the vehicle 1 and the traveling direction of the vehicle 1 in the form of a top view of the vehicle 1 based on the information on the front wheel steering, the rear wheel steering, and the traveling direction output from the ECU 30. It is something to display. Specifically, the front wheel steering angle δf, the rear wheel steering angle δr, the expected traveling locus and traveling direction of the vehicle 1 (forward, backward), etc. are schematically displayed to the driver. It plays a role of telling how 1 moves” and “when the vehicle speed V increases, the steering amounts of the front wheels Tf and the rear wheels Tr are controlled so as to decrease” and “a vehicle speed detection sensor (vehicle speed detection means) 51 for detecting the vehicle speed”; also, apparent from at least Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the suspension module of Konada with the teachings of Ota such that the controller is configured to estimate movement paths of the wheels of the vehicle based on a steering angle and a speed of each of the wheels of the vehicle sensed by the sensor unit to beneficially display to a driver of the vehicle, via a display, the estimated movement paths of the wheels of the vehicle such that the driver can accurately grasp correspondence between a driving operation and operation of the vehicle. Again, note that Ota discloses obtaining a vehicle speed of the vehicle via obtaining a speed of each of the wheels of the vehicle sensed by the sensor unit.
With respect to claim 15, Konada modified supra teaches method of claim 11, wherein the controlling of the suspension operably connected to the following wheel comprises estimating the movement path of the following wheel that overlaps with the movement line of the preceding wheel by calculating movement lines of a plurality of wheels of the vehicle based on a steering angle and a speed of each of the plurality of wheels of the vehicle sensed by the sensor unit (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 5 and 11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN ZALESKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/JOHN M ZALESKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747