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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s 7-20-2026 Amendment was received. Claims 1, 6, and 10 were amended. Claims 2-3 and 7 were cancelled and New Claims 11-13 were presented. Claims 1, 4-6, 8-13 are examined in this action.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 10 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a string cutting mechanism in claims 1 and 10; a compression assembly in Claims 1 and 10; a compression member in Claims 1 and 10 and 12; a second driving component in Claim 2; an adjustment assembly in Claim 6; an adjustment member in Claim 6 and 13; and an elastic member in Claims 6 and 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 10-11 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.
In re Claim 10, “a string soldering machine” is indefinite. The claim fail to require a structure that solders. The only structure required by the claim is cutting structure and structure for moving the workpiece. It is unclear how the body of the claim is claiming soldering machine. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required. The claims were examined as requiring the structure claimed after the transition phrase. The claims were examined a best understood.
In re Claim 11, “the forth conveyor roller” is indefinite. Claim 11 depends from Claim 1, which introduces a first conveyor roller and a second conveyor roller. A forth conveyor roller was not previously introduced. It is unclear what is a forth conveyor roller in view of the claims.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0318126 to Okazaki in view of US 4,092,889 to Fisher, US 4,184,393 to Bastien and US 4,203,334 to Zettler.
In re Claim 1 Okazaki teaches a manufacturing apparatus (see Fig. 2), comprising:
a first conveyor roller (see Fig. 2, #13) and a second conveyor roller that are both rotatably disposed (see Fig. 2, the other #13);
a first transition roller (see Fig. 2, #11a) and a second transition roller (see Fig. 2, #11b) that are both rotatably disposed, wherein the first transition roller is located between the first conveyor roller and the second conveyor roller (see Fig. 2, showing 11a between both rollers #13/13), and the second transition roller is located between the first transition roller and the second conveyor roller (see Fig. 2, showing #11b between #11a and #13);
a first compression roller (see Fig. 2, #11c) disposed between the first transition roller and the second transition roller (see Fig. 2, showing #11c between #11a and #11b), and having an upper end lower than an upper end of the first transition roller (see Fig. 2, showing #11c below #11a/b);
a first conveyor belt wound around the first conveyor roller (see Figs. 2, #12), the first transition roller, the first compression roller, the second transition roller, and the second conveyor roller (see Fig. 2), wherein the first conveyor belt is configured to convey a cell string (The conveyer belt #12 is capable of conveying the workpiece), and part of the first conveyor belt is wound around the first transition roller, the first compression roller, and the second transition roller to form a string cutting groove (see Fig. 2, #14); and
a string cutting mechanism (see Fig. 2, laser #11; see also Para. 0003) disposed on the first support and comprising a string cutter (see Fig. 2, laser is capable of cutting a workpiece, and is considered a string cutter).
Okazaki illustrated these limitations without a support. As such, Okazaki does not teach a first support. Further, Okazaki teaches a laser cutter and not a guillotine type cutter. As such, Okazaki does not teach a first driving component for driving the string cutter into or out of the string cutting groove, wherein the string cutting mechanism further comprises a compression assembly, the compression assembly comprising a compression member and a second driving component for driving the compression member to push the cell string to abut against the first conveyor belt, and wherein the compression member is located above the first transition roller.
However, Fisher teaches that it is known in the art of belts would around rollers to provide a support structure for belt drives that are driven by rollers (see Fisher, Fig. 2, #23). In the same field of invention, belt drives, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to add the support structure of Fisher to the assembly of Okazaki. Doing so would provide structure for the roller to attach to as well as feet for placing the device on the ground.
Further, Bastien teaches that it is known in the belt conveying art to convey a metal piece via belts and place a guillotine cutting device between rollers (see Bastien, Fig. 1-3, #6/5 which is considered a string cutter) and a first driving component for driving the string cutter into or out of the string cutting groove (see Bastien, Col. 3, ll. 20-27, teaching movable blade moving into the cutting groove between the rollers in Figs. 1-3).
In the same field of invention, conveying belts for workpieces, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to replace the laser workpiece cutter with the guillotine workpiece cutter as taught by Bastien. Doing so is the substation of one known cutting device for another known cutting device to achieve the results of cutting a particular workpiece (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Further, Zettler teaches a compression assembly (see Zettler, Figs. 1, #3) , the compression assembly comprising a compression member and a second driving component for driving the compression member to push the cell string to abut against the first conveyor belt (see Zettler, Fig. 1, #3, arrow and Col. 2, ll. 42-45 and Col. 3, ll. 30-38).
In the same field of invention, rectilinear cutting devices for moving workpieces, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add a compression member to secure the workpiece during the cut, as taught by Zettler. Doing so is the use of a known techniques to improve a similar device (see MPEP 2143, I, C). such a device holds down the workpiece to be cut to ensure a proper position/location.
Such a combination would provide for wherein the compression member is located above the first transition roller of Okazaki.
In re Claim 4, modified Okazaki, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein an upper end of the first conveyor roller, the upper end of the first transition roller, an upper end of the second transition roller, and an upper end of the second conveyor roller are flush (see Okazaki, Fig. 2).
In re Claim 5, modified Okazaki, in re Claim 1, is silent as to further comprising a tension roller assembly, wherein the tension roller assembly comprises a first tension roller and a second tension roller that are spaced apart along a length direction of the first conveyor belt, and the first conveyor belt is wound around the first tension roller and the second tension roller.
However, Fisher teaches that it is known in the art of belt conveyors for plate shaped materials to be cut to provide a tension roller assembly (see Fisher, Fig. 6, #29/29), wherein the tension roller assembly comprises a first tension roller (see Fisher, Fig. 6, #29) and a second tension roller (see Fisher, Fig. 6, the other #29) that are spaced apart along a length direction of the first conveyor belt, and the first conveyor belt is wound around the first tension roller and the second tension roller (see Fig. 6, showing belt wound #29/29).
In the same field of invention, conveyers for plate shaped materials, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add tension rollers to the belt of Okazaki, as taught by Fisher. Doing so provides maintains the tension in the belt (See Fisher, Col. 4, ll. 20-25).
In re Claim 8, modified Okazaki, in re Claim 1 teaches further comprising a second support (see Fig. 1, #20, including the two “legs” below the belt), a second conveyor belt (see Para. 0048 belt #21 in view of Fig. 1 and Fig. 4), a third conveyor roller (see Fig. 1, showing #20 having two rollers), and a fourth conveyor roller (see Fig.1 showing #20 having two rollers), wherein the third conveyor roller and the fourth conveyor roller are both rotatably disposed on the second support (see Fig.1 ), the second conveyor belt is wound around the third conveyor roller and the fourth conveyor roller (see Fig. 1, #20), and the second conveyor belt is configured to convey the cell string cut by the string cutter (see Fig. 1, #20 and Para. 0080-81).
In re Claim 9, modified Okazaki, in re Claim 1 teaches wherein an upper surface of the first conveyor belt is flush with an upper surface of the second conveyor belt (see Fig. 1, showing the belt of #20 and belt of #10 as “flush”).
In re Claim 10, Okazaki teaches a manufacturing apparatus (see Fig. 2), comprising:
a first conveyor roller (see Fig. 2, #13) and a second conveyor roller that are both rotatably disposed (see Fig. 2, the other #13);
a first transition roller (see Fig. 2, #11a) and a second transition roller (see Fig. 2, #11b) that are both rotatably disposed, wherein the first transition roller is located between the first conveyor roller and the second conveyor roller (see Fig. 2, showing 11a between both rollers #13/13), and the second transition roller is located between the first transition roller and the second conveyor roller (see Fig. 2, showing #11b between #11a and #13);
a first compression roller (see Fig. 2, #11c) disposed between the first transition roller and the second transition roller (see Fig. 2, showing #11c between #11a and #11b), and having an upper end lower than an upper end of the first transition roller (see Fig. 2, showing #11c below #11a/b);
a first conveyor belt wound around the first conveyor roller (see Figs. 2, #12), the first transition roller, the first compression roller, the second transition roller, and the second conveyor roller (see Fig. 2), wherein the first conveyor belt is configured to convey a cell string (The conveyer belt #12 is capable of conveying the workpiece), and part of the first conveyor belt is wound around the first transition roller, the first compression roller, and the second transition roller to form a string cutting groove (see Fig. 2, #14); and
a string cutting mechanism (see Fig. 2, laser #11; see also Para. 0003) disposed on the first support and comprising a string cutter (see Fig. 2, laser is capable of cutting a workpiece, and is considered a string cutter).
Okazaki illustrated these limitations without a support. As such, Okazaki does not teach a first support. Further, Okazaki teaches a laser cutter and not a guillotine type cutter. As such, Okazaki does not teach a first driving component for driving the string cutter into or out of the string cutting groove, wherein the string cutting mechanism further comprises a compression assembly, the compression assembly comprising a compression member and a second driving component for driving the compression member to push the cell string to abut against the first conveyor belt, and wherein the compression member is located above the first transition roller.
However, Fisher teaches that it is known in the art of belts would around rollers to provide a support structure for belt drives that are driven by rollers (see Fisher, Fig. 2, #23). In the same field of invention, belt drives, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to add the support structure of Fisher to the assembly of Okazaki. Doing so would provide structure for the roller to attach to as well as feet for placing the device on the ground.
Further, Bastien teaches that it is known in the belt conveying art to convey a metal piece via belts and place a guillotine cutting device between rollers (see Bastien, Fig. 1-3, #6/5 which is considered a string cutter) and a first driving component for driving the string cutter into or out of the string cutting groove (see Bastien, Col. 3, ll. 20-27, teaching movable blade moving into the cutting groove between the rollers in Figs. 1-3).
In the same field of invention, conveying belts for workpieces, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to replace the laser workpiece cutter with the guillotine workpiece cutter as taught by Bastien. Doing so is the substation of one known cutting device for another known cutting device to achieve the results of cutting a particular workpiece (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Further, Zettler teaches a compression assembly (see Figs. 1, #3) , the compression assembly comprising a compression member and a second driving component for driving the compression member to push the cell string to abut against the first conveyor belt (see Fig. 1, #3, arrow and Col. 2, ll. 42-45 and Col. 3, ll. 30-38).
In the same field of invention, rectilinear cutting devices for moving workpieces, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add a compression member to secure the workpiece during the cut, as taught by Zettler. Doing so is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device (see MPEP 2143, I, C). such a device holds down the workpiece to be cut to ensure a proper position/location.
Such a combination would provide for wherein the compression member is located above the first transition roller of Okazaki.
In re Claim 12, modified Okazaki, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein: the second driving component is drivingly connected to the compression member to drive the compression member to reciprocate in a direction toward or away from the first conveyor belt (see Zettler, Fig. 1, #3, arrow and Col. 2, ll. 42-45 and Col. 3, ll. 30-38), and press the cell string against the first conveyor belt when the compression member approaches the first conveyor belt (The compression member of Zettler would press the workpiece into the conveyor belt of Okazaki); and the first driving component is drivingly connected to the string cutter to drive the string cutter to reciprocate (see Bastien, which teaches a movable blade – Col. 3, ll. 20-27 and Figs. 1-3), so as to cut a ribbon of the cell string in a state where the cell string is pressed (The blade of Bastien would cut the workpiece when the workpiece is being pressed in modified Okazaki).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0318126 to Okazaki in view of US 4,092,889 to Fisher, US 4,184,393 to Bastien and US 4,203,334 to Zettler, and further in view of US 10,384,879 to German.
In re Claim 6, modified Okazaki, in re Claim 5, teaches wherein an adjustment assembly (see Fisher, #29/29) is disposed between the first tension roller and the first support, and is configured to adjust a distance between the first tension roller and the second tension roller (see Fisher, Fig.6, #29/29 in view of Fig. 2 of Okazaki).
However, modified Okazaki, in re Claim 5 is silent as to wherein the adjustment assembly comprises an adjustment member and an elastic member, the first support is provided with a waist-shaped hole, one end of a roller shaft of the first tension roller is movably accommodated in the waist-shaped hole, a sidewall of the waist-shaped hole is provided with a threaded hole, the adjustment member is disposed in the threaded hole in a penetrating manner and is in thread fit with the threaded hole, one end of the adjustment member abuts against one end of the roller shaft of the first tension roller, and the elastic member is configured to cause one end of the roller shaft of the first tension roller to abut against one end of the adjustment member.
However, German teaches that it is known to provide a tension structure wherein the adjustment assembly (see German, Figs. 1-2. And 4, #556) comprises an adjustment member (see German, Fig. 4, #566) and an elastic member (see German, Fig. 4, #572), the first support is provided with a waist-shaped hole (see German, Fig. 4, hole of #5825), one end of a roller shaft of the first tension roller is movably accommodated in the waist-shaped hole (see German, Fig. 4,#580 in view of Figs. 1-2), a sidewall of the waist-shaped hole is provided with a threaded hole (see German, Fig.4, #564 has threaded hole #568), the adjustment member is disposed in the threaded hole in a penetrating manner and is in thread fit with the threaded hole (see German, Figs 1-2, and #4, screw or bolt #566 is passed through threaded hole), one end of the adjustment member abuts against one end of the roller shaft of the first tension roller (see German, Figs. 1-2, and 4; see also Col. 4, ll. 30-54), and the elastic member is configured to cause one end of the roller shaft of the first tension roller to abut against one end of the adjustment member (see German, Figs. 1-2, and 4 in view of Col. 4, ll. 30-54).
In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to replace the tensioner of modified Okazaki with the tensioner of German. Doing so provides a simple tensioner that relies on hand tools and can be adjusted without the use of an electric or hydraulic system. Such a system makes it easy to replace mechanical parts as opposed to complex electric parts or hydraulic elements.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0318126 to Okazaki in view of US 4,092,889 to Fisher, US 4,184,393 to Bastien and US 4,203,334 to Zettler, and further in view of US 5,072,637 to Reichental
In re Claim 11, modified Okazaki, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein a roller shaft of the fourth conveyor roller is connected to a fourth driving component, and the fourth driving component is configured to actively drive the fourth conveyor roller to rotate.
However, Reichental teaches that it is known in the art of conveying cut workpieces to provide a roller shaft on a forth conveyor roller which is connected to a driving component (see Reichental, Figs. 1-3, #20/13/12, 11, etc. and Col. 3, ll. 22-40, teaching a motor to drive the web/roller assembly), and the fourth driving component is configured to actively drive the fourth conveyor roller to rotate.
In the same field of invention, conveying cut workpieces, it would have been obvious tot one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to provide a conveyer roller and shaft with a driving component to provide a belt conveyor to move the cut workpieces out of the cutter for further processing or finishing. Doing so allows the cutting device to continue to cut without the user manually removing the workpiece thus increasing efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 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.
The closest prior art is:
US 2016/0318126 to Okazaki;
US 4,092,889 to Fisher;
US 4,184,393 to Bastien;
US 4,203,334 to Zettler;
US 5,072,637 to Reichental; and
US 10,384,879 to German.
German teaches that it is known to provide a tension structure wherein the adjustment assembly (see German, Figs. 1-2. And 4, #556) comprises an adjustment member (see German, Fig. 4, #566) and an elastic member (see German, Fig. 4, #572), the first support is provided with a waist-shaped hole (see German, Fig. 4, hole of #5825), one end of a roller shaft of the first tension roller is movably accommodated in the waist-shaped hole (see German, Fig. 4,#580 in view of Figs. 1-2; see also German, Fig.4, #564 has threaded hole #568, Figs 1-2, and #4, screw or bolt #566 is passed through threaded hole; Col. 4, ll. 30-54).
However, German does not teach the structure of one end of the elastic member abuts against one side of the waist-shaped hole in a length direction of the waist-shaped hole. None of the cited prior art references teach moving the elastic member of German to the claimed position inside the waist-shaped hole in a length direction. As such, Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments to claim 10 filed 7-20-2026 have been fully considered. Applicant added structure directed to the cell string cutting apparatus and did not add structure directed to a soldering machine. In other words, there are no limitations directed to “soldering” in the body of the claim. Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 10-14, filed 7-20-2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1, 4-6, and 8-10 under Okazaki in view of Fischer have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 2016/0318126 to Okazaki in view of US 4,092,889 to Fisher, US 4,184,393 to Bastien and US 4,203,334 to Zettler – see above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
