DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 07/09/2026.
Claims 1-7 and 17-26 are currently pending and have been examined below. Claims 8-16 are cancelled.
Claim Interpretation
With respect to applicant’s original disclosure, recitation of “a panel interface zone” in at least claim 21 was interpreted as a zone of track components rather than merely an intangible zone. This interpretation was set forth because ‘zone’ is defined “An area or a region distinguished from adjacent parts by a distinctive feature or characteristic” which can be interpreted as an intangible area thus would not have tangible elements or features.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 8-17, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12221826. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the US Patent includes all features presented in claims 1-6, 8-17, and 20, for example, a first curved track portion and second curved track portion each comprising multiple radii of curvatures comprising non-simple open curves. Claims 1-6, 8-17, and 20 do recite an additional feature of forming the lower track and curved track portion by a single piece.
However, this additional feature is an obvious non-inventive feature as the courts have held that "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice". In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form both the lower track and curved track portion by a single piece, with a reasonable expectation of success, for manufacturing benefits such that less parts are built and for assembly improvements as there lesser parts to assemble.
Therefore, with the reasons presented above, the present claims are not patentably distinct from the US Patent.
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 18-19 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.
Claims 18 and 19
Recitations such as “wherein the first single, monolithic component is injection molded to set the lower track of the first horizontal track portion and the lower track of the second horizontal track portion at an angle that is between 1 degree and 15 degrees” on lines 1-3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how does the injection molding of the first single, monolithic component of the first horizontal track portion and the first curved track portion affect the angle of the second horizontal track portion.
This claim seems to be missing the second single, monolithic component similar to claim 7. This issue is also present in claim 19.
Examiner notes applicant that claims 18 and 19 were amended improperly as some limitations were added without the proper markings to show the changes (see MPEP 714(II)(C)(C)). See example of improperly added limitations in claim 18 below. Note that, despite these improper amendments, examiner still examined the claims however notes applicant that such repeat mistake would lead examiner to file a Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment.
PNG
media_image1.png
387
795
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 1-6, 17, 20-23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalton et al. (US 20080202698) (hereinafter “Dalton”) in view of Lothar (WO 2004016892).
Claim 1
(Dalton discloses) A track of a vertically stacking door (figures 1-4), comprising:
a vertical track (5);
a first curved track portion (upper curved track leading to horizontal track 4; figure 3) connected to a first horizontal track portion (4);
a second curved track portion (lower curved track leading to horizontal track 3) connected to a second horizontal track portion (3),
wherein the first curved track portion and the second curved track portion are split off from the vertical track (figure 3),
wherein a lower guide path (Annotated figure 3 below) of the first horizontal track portion and the first curved track portion is formed by a first single, monolithic component (Annotated figure 3 below); and
wherein a lower guide path (Annotated figure 3 below) of the second horizontal track portion and the second curved track portion is formed by a second single, monolithic component (Annotated figure 3 below).
Dalton fails to disclose:
(i) wherein the first curved track portion and the second curved track portion each comprises multiple radii of curvature,
(ii) wherein the multiple radii of curvature comprise a non-simple open curve with two different curves comprising a first curved portion having a first radius of curvature and a second curved portion having a second radius of curvature that is different than the first radius of curvature.
(However, Lothar teaches)
(i) a curved track portion (10; Lothar figures 1-7) comprises multiple radii of curvature (Annotated figure 7 below),
(ii) wherein the multiple radii of curvature comprise a non-simple open curve with two different curves (Annotated figure 7 below; note that applicant’s disclosure discloses ‘non-simple open curve’ as --two different curves or may have two different portions that have two different radii-- [par. 40]; this limitation was interpreted in a similar manner) comprising a first curved portion having a first radius of curvature (Annotated figure 7 below) and a second curved portion having a second radius of curvature that is different than the first radius of curvature (second curved portion also shown in Annotated figure 7 below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the curvatures of the first curved track portion and the second curved track portion of Dalton such that they each have multiple radii of curvatures similar to the teachings of Lothar, with a reasonable expectation of success, for providing a smoother transition between the horizontal track portion and vertical track thus reduces noise and vibration, and improves the lifecycle of the stacking door assembly.
PNG
media_image2.png
612
569
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 3
PNG
media_image3.png
605
715
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 7
Claim 2
(Dalton, as modified above, discloses) The track of claim 1 , wherein the first radius of curvature is greater than the second radius of curvature (Annotated figure 7 above; see disclosure below regarding the relation of a tight bend and gentle bend with the radii of curvature).
PNG
media_image4.png
206
682
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Source: https://www.khanacademy.org/math/multivariable-calculus/multivariable-derivatives/differentiating-vector-valued-functions/a/curvature
Claim 3
(Dalton, as modified above, discloses) The track of claim 1, wherein the first radius of curvature is to minimize angular acceleration during a transition from vertical movement to horizontal movement of a panel (1) of the vertically stacking door (this is taught via the gentle bend of the modified first curved track portion in the combination above).
Claim 4
(Dalton, as modified above, discloses) The track of claim 1.
Modified Dalton is silent regarding wherein the first radius of curvature is five to seven times greater than the second radius of curvature.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to optimize the curvatures of the radii of curvature such that the first radius of curvature is five to seven times greater than the second radius of curvature, with a reasonable expectation of success, for improved transition of the panels of the vertically stacking door.
Claim 5
(Dalton, as modified above, discloses) The track of claim 1.
Modified Dalton is silent regarding wherein the first radius of curvature of the two different radii of curvature is between 10 to 15 inches.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to optimize the curvatures of the radii of curvature such that the first radius of curvature is between 10 to 15 inches, with a reasonable expectation of success, for improved transition of the panels of the vertically stacking door.
Claim 6
(Dalton, as modified above, discloses) The track of claim 1.
Modified Dalton is silent regarding wherein the second radius of curvature of the two different radii of curvature is between 2 inches to 3 inches.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to optimize the curvatures of the radii of curvature such that the second radius of curvature is between 2 inches to 3 inches, with a reasonable expectation of success, for improved transition of the panels of the vertically stacking door.
Claim 17
(Dalton discloses) A vertical door guide (figures 1-4) for a vertically stacking door (1 and 2), comprising:
a first vertical door guide (left side door guides 3-6; figure 1); and
a second vertical door guide (right side door guides 3-6),
wherein the first vertical door guide and the second vertical door guide each comprise:
a vertical track (5);
a panel interface zone (the zone shown in the partial view of figure 3 including a partial vertical and horizontal tracks and the curved tracks) comprising a first curved track portion (upper curved track leading to horizontal track 4; figure 3) and a second curved track portion (lower curved track leading to horizontal track 3),
a first horizontal track portion (4), wherein a lower track of the first horizontal track portion (Annotated figure 3 above) and the first curved track portion are formed by a first single, monolithic component (Annotated figure 3 above); and
a second horizontal track portion (3), wherein a lower track of the second horizontal track portion (Annotated figure 3 above) and the second curved track portion is formed by a second single monolithic component (Annotated figure 3 above).
Dalton fails to disclose wherein the first curved track portion and the second curved track portion each comprises a non-simple open curve with two different curves comprising a first curved portion having a first radius of curvature and a second curved portion having a second radius of curvature that is different than the first radius of curvature.
(However, Lothar teaches) a curved track portion (10; Lothar figures 1-7) comprises a non-simple open curve with two different curves (Annotated figure 7 above; note that applicant’s disclosure discloses ‘non-simple open curve’ as --two different curves or may have two different portions that have two different radii-- [par. 40]; this limitation was interpreted in a similar manner) comprising a first curved portion having a first radius of curvature (Annotated figure 7 above) and a second curved portion having a second radius of curvature that is different from the first radius of curvature (second curved portion also shown in Annotated figure 7 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the curvatures of the first curved track portion and the second curved track portion of Dalton such that they each have multiple radii of curvatures similar to the teachings of Lothar, with a reasonable expectation of success, for providing a smoother transition between the horizontal track portion and vertical track thus reduces noise and vibration, and improves the lifecycle of the stacking door assembly.
Claim 20
(Dalton, as modified above, discloses) The vertical door guide of claim 17.
Modified Dalton is silent regarding wherein the first radius of curvature is approximately 13 inches and the second radius of curvature is approximately 2 inches.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to optimize the curvatures of the radii of curvature such that the first radius of curvature is approximately 13 inches and the second radius of curvature is approximately 2 inches, with a reasonable expectation of success, for improved transition of the panels of the vertically stacking door.
Claim 21
(Dalton discloses) A track of a vertically stacking door (figures 1-4), comprising:
a vertical track (5);
a panel interface zone (the zone shown in the partial view of figure 3 including a partial vertical and horizontal tracks and the curved tracks) coupled to the vertical track, the panel interface zone comprising a first curved track portion (upper curved track leading to horizontal track 4; figure 3) and a second curved track portion (lower curved track leading to horizontal track 3); and
a horizontal track (3 and 4) coupled to the panel interface zone, the horizontal track comprising a first horizontal track portion (4) and a second horizontal track portion (3),
wherein the first horizontal track portion, the second horizontal track portion, and the panel interface zone define a continuous inner guide surface (Annotated figure 3 above) for guiding rollers (11) of the vertically stacking door; and
wherein the first horizontal track portion, the second horizontal track portion, and the panel interface zone are assembled from a plurality of components (see figure 3 showing plurality of components for the track portions) secured by fasteners (Annotated figure 3 above), and wherein all of said fasteners are located outside of the continuous inner guide surface, leaving the continuous inner guide surface free from connection points and openings (Annotated figure 3 above).
Dalton fails to disclose wherein the first and second curved track portions each comprises a non-simple open curve having a first radius of curvature and a different, second radius of curvature.
(However, Lothar teaches) A curved track portion (10; Lothar figures 1-7) comprises a non-simple open curve (Annotated figure 7 above; note that applicant’s disclosure discloses ‘non-simple open curve’ as --two different curves or may have two different portions that have two different radii-- [par. 40]; this limitation was interpreted in a similar manner) having a first radius of curvature (Annotated figure 7 above) and a different, second radius of curvature (Annotated figure 7 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the curvatures of the first curved track portion and the second curved track portion of Dalton such that they each have multiple radii of curvatures similar to the teachings of Lothar, with a reasonable expectation of success, for providing a smoother transition between the horizontal track portion and vertical track thus reduces noise and vibration, and improves the lifecycle of the stacking door assembly.
Claim 22
(Dalton, as modified above, discloses) The track of claim 21, wherein the plurality of components comprises a panel bracket (9), and wherein the first and second horizontal track portions are secured to the panel bracket (figure 3).
Claim 23
(Dalton, as modified above, discloses) The track of claim 21, wherein the first horizontal track portion is formed by a first bracket and a first lower track component (both shown in Partial Annotated figure 3 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
358
443
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Partial Annotated figure 3
Claim 25
(Dalton, as modified above, discloses) The track of claim 23, wherein the first bracket comprises a smooth, flat area that forms an upper portion of the continuous inner guide surface (Partial Annotated figure 3 above).
Claim 26
(Dalton, as modified above, discloses) The track of claim 23, wherein the first lower track component includes a flange (7), and wherein said fasteners pass through openings in the flange (one of the fasteners in Annotated figure 3 above pass through the flange).
Claims 7 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalton in view of Lothar, as applied to claims 1-6, 17, 20-23, and 25-26 above, in further view of Kwant (EP 3159467).
Claim 7
(Dalton, as modified above, discloses) The track of claim 1, wherein the first single monolithic component and the second single monolithic component are each injection molded (this limitation was interpreted as product-by-process limitations; see MPEP 2113).
Modified Dalton is silent regarding setting the lower track of the first horizontal track portion and the lower track of the second horizontal track portion at an angle that is between 1 degree and 15 degrees.
(However, Kwant teaches) a bent profile (BG; Kwant figure 4) of a curved track portion (track portion in Kwant figure 4) at an angle that is between 1 degree and 15 degrees (Kwant figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the angle of the curved track portions of modified Dalton such that the lower track of the first horizontal track portion and the lower track of the second horizontal track portion are set at an angle that is between 1 degree and 15 degrees as taught by Kwant, with a reasonable expectation of success, for providing additional vertical space as such improving clearance underneath the horizontal track portions.
Claim 18
(Dalton, as modified above, discloses) The vertical door guide of claim 17, wherein the first single, monolithic component is injection molded (this limitation was interpreted as product-by-process limitations; see MPEP 2113).
Modified Dalton is silent regarding setting the lower track of the first horizontal track portion at an angle that is between 1 degree and 15 degrees.
(However, Kwant teaches) a bent profile (BG; Kwant figure 4) of a curved track portion (track portion in Kwant figure 4) at an angle that is between 1 degree and 15 degrees (Kwant figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the angle of the curved track portions of modified Dalton such that the lower track of the first horizontal track portion and the lower track of the second horizontal track portion are set at an angle that is between 1 degree and 15 degrees as taught by Kwant, with a reasonable expectation of success, for providing additional vertical space as such improving clearance underneath the horizontal track portions.
Claim 19
(Dalton, as modified above, discloses) The vertical door guide of claim 17, wherein the second single, monolithic component is injection molded (this limitation was interpreted as product-by-process limitations; see MPEP 2113).
Modified Dalton is silent regarding setting the lower track of the second horizontal track portion at an angle that is between 1 degree and 15 degrees.
(However, Kwant teaches) a bent profile (BG; Kwant figure 4) of a curved track portion (track portion in Kwant figure 4) at an angle that is between 1 degree and 15 degrees (Kwant figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the angle of the curved track portions of modified Dalton such that the lower track of the first horizontal track portion and the lower track of the second horizontal track portion are set at an angle that is between 1 degree and 15 degrees as taught by Kwant, with a reasonable expectation of success, for providing additional vertical space as such improving clearance underneath the horizontal track portions.
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalton in view of Lothar, as applied to claims 1-6, 17, 20-23, and 25-26 above, in further view of Sugasawara et al. (WO 2008032541) (hereinafter “Sugasawara”).
Claim 23
(Dalton, as modified above, discloses) The track of claim 21.
Modified Dalton fails to disclose wherein the first horizontal track portion is formed by a first bracket and a first lower track component.
(However, Sugasawara teaches) wherein a first horizontal track portion is formed by a first bracket and a first lower track component (both parts shown in Annotated figure 20 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the first horizontal track portion of modified Dalton with the first horizontal track portion Sugasawara such that the track can be compactly shipped for improved manufacturing while still providing an easy assembly process.
PNG
media_image6.png
497
618
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 20
Claim 24
(Dalton, as modified above, discloses) The track of claim 23, further comprising a first outer plate (Annotated figure 20 above), wherein the first bracket, the first lower track component, and the first outer plate include a plurality of aligned openings (openings of all three that align with opening 53 of the first outer plate for assembly) to receive said fasteners (Annotated figure 20 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment directed to the drawing objection has been considered and the objection was withdrawn.
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s notes regarding the double patenting rejection therefore the rejection was maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues by stating “Dalton, in contrast, teaches the exact opposite. Dalton relies on the use of an active, mechanical swivel gate (7) located directly within the transition curve. The express purpose of Dalton's gate is to intentionally disrupt and physically block the movement of rollers from the horizontal track into the vertical track for one of its two doors. A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to create a continuous, uninterrupted guide surface would not look to Dalton, which fundamentally relies on placing an obstruction directly inside the roller path”. These arguments were found unpersuasive as these do not address the fact that Dalton’s track is a “single and monolithic component” and the inner surfaces have a “continuous inner guide surface” which what are actually claimed therefore it seems that applicant’s arguments are much narrower than what is actually claimed. Furthermore, the gate 7 does not take away from the smoothness of the inner surfaces of the curved and horizontal track portions of Dalton nor does the claim require the track portions to completely have no obstructions.
Regarding “As Lothar's own disclosure admits, this split-assembly design creates an "abrupt change" in the curvature. To mitigate the problems caused by this abrupt, discontinuous transition, Lothar introduces a complex, active mechanical component-the transport and guide wheel (19, 22)-to physically catch and force the rollers through the gap. Lothar provides no motivation to form the curved portions and the horizontal tracks as a single piece; it teaches the exact opposite by creating the curve from separate, joined sub-channels”, these were found unpersuasive as Lothar was not relied upon the “single, monolithic component” nor the “continuous inner guide surface” features of the amendments (This is also true for arguments directed to Kwant).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK B PONCIANO whose telephone number is (571)272-9910. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-4:00.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at (571) 270-5616. 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.
/PATRICK B. PONCIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
