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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The naming convention used in the specification for the communication units is inconsistent with the naming convention used in the claims and when examining the claims in light of the specification, it is unclear which communication unit in the claims corresponds to which communication unit in the specification. Conflicting naming convention includes the following:
Specification, Para. 0047, “electric reel 5 includes a second communication unit 41” and Claim 1, Ln. 2 “a fishing reel having a first communication unit”
Specification, Para. 0040, “smartphone 3 has a first communication unit 17” and Claim 1, Ln. 6, “an electronic device having … a second communication unit”
Although Applicant is not required to amend the naming convention in the claims or the specification, Examiner suggests that the specification and/or the claims be amended to maintain consistency and clarity between the specification, drawings, and claims by one of the following:
Specification amendment
“a second communication unit 41” (Specification, Para. 0047) to --a first communication unit 41--
“a first communication unit 17” (Specification, Para. 0040) to --a second communication unit 17--
Specification amendment and Claim amendment
“a second communication unit 41” (Specification, Para. 0047) to --a reel communication unit 41-- and “a fishing reel having a first communication unit” (Claim 1, Ln. 2) to --a fishing reel having a reel communication unit--
“a first communication unit 17” to --an electronic device communication unit 17-- and “an electronic device having … a second communication unit” (Claim 1, Ln. 6) to --an electronic device having … an electronic device communication unit--
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) include:
Claim 1, “a first communication unit” and “a second communication unit”
Claim 4, “a measuring unit”
Claim 6, “a display unit”
Multiple limitations regarding functions which “a controller” is configured to perform (See Claims 1-4 and 7)
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Regarding Claim 6,
Claim 6, Ln. 2, “a display unit to display information in the first memory” is vague and indefinite. It is unclear which information is being displayed. For examination purposes, Examiner has assumed that “information in the first memory” refers to “first information,” (Claim 1, Ln. 7). If this interpretation is correct, Examiner suggests “a display unit to display information in the first memory” should read --a display unit to display first information in the first memory--
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota (JP 2017163886 A) and as evidenced by Kano (US 12,307,235) and Yasuda (US 12,514,241).
PNG
media_image1.png
471
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 2 from Ota
Regarding Claim 1, Ota, Figures 1-8 and annotated Figure 1 above, teaches a fishing line information learning system, comprising:
a fishing reel 100 having a first communication unit 25 and a spool 10 including a pair of flange portions 10a and a bobbin trunk 10b, the bobbin trunk 10b configured to have fishing line wound therearound between the pair of flange portions 10a (See Ota, Fig. 8, Para. 0054); and
an electronic device 102 having a camera configured to be capable of photographing the spool 10 (See Ota, Para. 0054),
the electronic device 102 is configured to communicate with the first communication unit 25 (See Ota, Para. 0035) and configured to store first information (captured image; See Ota, Para. 0054) acquired by the camera, and
the fishing reel 100 or the electronic device 102
configured to store a calculation formula to calculate a line winding amount of the fishing line (See Ota, Para. 0054) in a range from a first time point when the winding of the fishing line is started (time point at which outermost diameter of the wound fishing line marked by X is equal to inner diameter r1; See Ota, Fig. 8, Para. 0054) to a second time point when the winding of the fishing line is ended (time point at which outermost diameter of the wound fishing line marked by X is equal to outer diameter r2; See Ota, Fig. 8, Para. 0054), and
configured to estimate a final line winding diameter (outermost diameter of the wound fishing line marked by X; See Ota, Fig. 8, Para. 0054) at the second time point based on the first information (captured image; See Ota, Para. 0054) at the second time point, and calculate the line winding amount (amount of winding; See Ota, Para. 0054, Ln. 24) based on the final line winding diameter (outermost diameter of the wound fishing line marked by X; See Ota, Fig. 8, Para. 0054) and the calculation formula (“using the contour shape of the thread winding portion X extracted from the captured image, and the acquired data of the inner diameter r1 and outer diameter r2, the ratio of the amount of fishing line wound to a predetermined length is calculated. From this calculation result, the amount of winding can be estimated”; See Ota, Fig. 8, Para. 0054).
Although Ota is silent regarding a second communication unit configured to communicate with the first communication unit, the second communication unit is disclosed implicitly because Ota discloses “communication unit 25 has a communication function such as Bluetooth (registered trademark) and communicates with the smartphone 102,” (See Ota, Para. 0035) and a communication unit is a well-known means to those of ordinary skill in the art which is commonly used for the purpose of transmitting data between devices using a wired or wireless connection. Thus, it is implied that smartphone 102 has a second communication unit configured to communicate with the first communication unit 25 in the reel 100.
Although Ota is silent regarding a first memory configured to store first information acquired by the camera and a second memory configured to store a calculation formula to calculate a line winding amount, the first memory and second memory configured for these functions are disclosed implicitly because Ota discloses “it is possible to take a picture of the fishing line package being wound up using the camera mounted on the smartphone 102, and estimate the amount of line to be wound up from the captured image. This allows the correct amount of fishing line to be wound up to be transmitted to the electric reel 100,” (See Ota, Para. 0054), the smartphone 102 is disclosed as having its own memory unit (See Ota, Para. 0049), and memory is a well-known means to those of ordinary skill in the art which is commonly used for the purpose of storing formulas and data to be used as inputs to said formulas. Thus, it is implied that smartphone 102 has a first and/or second memory storage capable of performing the claimed functions of the first memory and second memory.
Although Ota is silent regarding a controller configured to estimate a final line winding diameter at the second time point based on the first information at the second time point, and calculate the line winding amount based on the final line winding diameter and the calculation formula, the controller is disclosed implicitly because Ota discloses “The smartphone 102 extracts the contour shape of this annular spool portion X from the captured image…. Then, using the contour shape of the thread winding portion X extracted from the captured image, and the acquired data of the inner diameter r1 and outer diameter r2, the ratio of the amount of fishing line wound to a predetermined length is calculated. From this calculation result, the amount of winding can be estimated,” (See Ota, Para. 0054) and a controller is a well-known means to those of ordinary skill in the art which is commonly used for the purpose of performing calculations based on acquired data. Thus, it is implied that smartphone 102 has a controller configured to estimate a final line winding diameter at the second time point based on the first information at the second time point, and calculate the line winding amount based on the final line winding diameter and the calculation formula.
Additionally, these commonly used means for performing the above claimed functions are further evidenced by Kano for a system having a fishing reel and external electronic device communicating with each other via separate communication units (See Kano, Col. 9, Ln. 48-67), and Yasuda for a system which uses a storage means described as “a built-in memory or a removable medium” (See Yasuda, Col. 4, Ln. 65-66) and a controller which calculates line winding amount (See Yasuda, Col. 5, Ln. 4-45) using a function derived from inputs such as the shape of the spool, the thickness of the fishing line, and a reel-in length of the fishing line (See Yasuda, Col. 6, Ln. 3-6).
For the purpose of brevity, recitation of “first memory,” “second memory,” or “controller” in claims which are dependent on claim 1 will be mapped to the smartphone 102 in Ota based on the justification of the smartphone 102 comprising a first memory, a second memory, and a controller as presented above.
Regarding Claim 2, Ota is advanced above.
Ota further teaches wherein the first memory or the second memory (smartphone 102) is configured to store an outer diameter r1 of the bobbin trunk 10b or initial line winding diameter information (outermost diameter of the wound fishing line marked by X is inner diameter r1 for initial state prior to winding; See Ota, Fig. 8, Para. 0054) corresponding to an initial line winding diameter at the first time point (time point at which outermost diameter of the wound fishing line marked by X is inner diameter r1; See Ota, Fig. 8, Para. 0018, 0054), and
the controller (smartphone 102) is configured to calculate the line winding amount (amount of winding; See Ota, Para. 0054, Ln. 24) based on the final line winding diameter (outermost diameter of the wound fishing line marked by X; See Ota, Fig. 8, Para. 0054), the initial line winding diameter information (inner diameter r1), an actual line winding amount in the range (a predetermined length; See Ota, Para. 0054, Ln. 14, Ln. 23), and the calculation formula (See Ota, Para. 0018, 0054).
Regarding Claim 3, Ota is advanced above.
Ota further teaches wherein the first memory or the second memory is configured to store an outer diameter of the bobbin trunk or initial line winding diameter information corresponding to an initial line winding diameter at the first time point.
The scope of this limitation is taught by Ota in claim 2. See the rejection of claim 2 above for reference citations.
Ota further teaches wherein the first memory or the second memory (smartphone 102) is configured to store second information pertaining to the fishing line (fishing line information and diameter information; See Ota, Para. 0039, Ln. 4-6, Para. 0049), and
the controller (smartphone 102) is configured to calculate the line winding amount (amount of winding; See Ota, Para. 0054, Ln. 24) based on the final line winding diameter (outermost diameter of the wound fishing line marked by X; See Ota, Fig. 8, Para. 0054), the initial line winding diameter information (inner diameter r1), the second information (fishing line information and diameter information; See Ota, Para. 0037-0038, Para. 0039, Ln. 4-6, Para. 0049), and the calculation formula (See Ota, Para. 0036-0041).
Regarding Claim 5, Ota is advanced above.
Ota further teaches wherein the flange portion 10a or the bobbin trunk 10b includes an identification information display portion (label attached to the fishing line package; See Ota, Para. 0014-0015) including third information (product information; See Ota, Para. 0014-0015, Para. 0036) relating to the spool 10,
the identification information display portion (label attached to the fishing line package; See Ota, Para. 0014-0015) includes at least one of a one-dimensional barcode, a two-dimensional barcode, or character information (barcode attached to the fishing line package; See Ota, Para. 0036), and
when the identification information display portion (label attached to the fishing line package; See Ota, Para. 0014-0015) is photographed by the camera (See Ota, Para. 0048), the controller (smartphone 102) stores the third information (product information; See Ota, Para. 0014-0015, Para. 0036) in the first memory or the second memory (smartphone 102) (See Ota, Para. 0049).
Regarding Claim 6, Ota is advanced above.
Ota further teaches wherein the electronic device 102 has a display unit (screen; See Ota, Para. 0049, Ln. 2) to display information in the first memory (smartphone 102) (See Ota, Para. 0038-0039), and
the display unit (screen; See Ota, Para. 0049, Ln. 2) is configured to display the third information (product information; See Ota, Para. 0038-0039).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota (JP 2017163886 A) as applied to claims 1-3 and 5-6 above, and further in view of Furomoto (JP H11225632 A) and as evidenced by Maruyama (JP H09205951 A) and Yasuda (US 12,514,241).
Regarding Claim 4, Ota is advanced above.
Ota further teaches the first memory or the second memory is configured to store an outer diameter of the bobbin trunk or initial line winding diameter information corresponding to an initial line winding diameter at the first time point.
The scope of this limitation is taught by Ota in claim 2. See the rejection of claim 2 above for reference citations.
Ota further teaches wherein the fishing reel 100 has a measuring unit 23 configured to measure a number of rotations of the spool 10 (See Ota, Para. 0033).
Ota teaches all the elements of the fishing line information learning system except for the controller being configured to: recognize the final line winding diameter at the second time point as a first final line winding diameter, recognize, as a measured number of rotations, a number of rotations of the spool measured by the measuring unit between the second time point and a third time point at which a prescribed length of the fishing line has been pulled out, estimate a second final line winding diameter at the third time point based on the first information at the third time point, and calculate the line winding amount based on the first final line winding diameter, the initial line winding diameter information, the measured number of rotations, the second final line winding diameter, and the calculation formula.
However, Furomoto, Figures 1-11, teaches the controller 30 is configured to
recognize the final line winding diameter at the second time point (winding diameter after all of the fishing line is wound; See Furomoto, Para. 0031) as a first final line winding diameter (linear relationship for the wound line length per revolution of the spool as a function of spool revolutions is established by plotting line length per revolution of the spool at the initial winding diameter at the first time point (beginning of winding, revolutions = 0, and line length = 0) and at the final winding diameter at the second time point (all fishing line is wound on the spool, revolution = total revolutions to wind entire fishing line, and line length = total line length of spool). Then, the winding diameter at the second time point is recognized as a first final line winding diameter within this relationship at point Y(c), where Y is line length of the thread per revolution of the spool and c is the total number of revolutions for winding the entire length of fishing line; See Furomoto, Fig. 6, Para. 0009, Para. 0031-0036),
recognize, as a measured number of rotations (“the first rotation position data”; See Furomoto, Para. 0011, Ln. 2), a number of rotations of the spool 10 measured by the measuring unit 42 between the second time point (“winding of the fishing line onto the spool is complete” and when “Y(c) [is] the length of the thread per rotation of the spool when the spool 10 rotates c times” ; See Furomoto, Para. 0011, Ln. 4, Para. 0033, Ln. 1-2) and a third time point at which a prescribed length of the fishing line has been pulled out (“a predetermined length of fishing line has been unwound” and when “Y(c-d) [is] the length of the thread per rotation of the spool when a predetermined length S is unwound after c rotations and the spool rotates d times”; See Furomoto, Para. 0011, Ln. 3, Para. 0033, Ln. 2-3),and
calculate the line winding amount based on the initial line winding diameter information, the measured number of rotations, and the calculation formula (See Furomoto, Para. 0031-0036).
Although Furomoto derives the calculation coefficient (i.e., the rate of increase/decrease of the winding diameter) for the function of the line winding amount in terms of a predetermined length of fishing line (S), the initial winding diameter (B), the number of spool rotations after the predetermined length S has been unwound (c), and the total number of spool rotations (d), due to the fundamental mathematical relationship between the length of fishing line for one revolution of the spool (i.e. average circumference of the winding diameter at that time point) and the winding diameter, calculation coefficient “A” is based on the first final line winding diameter and the second final line winding diameter. Thus, the calculation of the line winding amount is also based on the first final line winding diameter and the second final line winding diameter. Using these parameters instead of those explicitly disclosed in Furomoto is merely algebraic substitution and reorganization of variables. This concept is further evidenced by Maruyama (See Maruyama, Para. 0046, 0054-0060, 0097) and Yasuda (See Yasuda, Col. 7, Ln. 1 - Col. 8, Ln. 5).
Although Ota and Furomoto are both silent regarding the controller being configured to estimate a second final line winding diameter at the third time point based on the first information at the third time point, Ota discloses a final line winding diameter estimation means which is based on the first information (i.e., processing an image taken by a camera viewing the spool in an axial direction to determine winding diameter, See the rejection of claim 1 above) and Furomoto derives the calculation formula based on the third time point.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ota and Furomoto to provide the controller being configured to recognize the final line winding diameter at the second time point as a first final line winding diameter, recognize, as a measured number of rotations, a number of rotations of the spool measured by the measuring unit between the second time point and a third time point at which a prescribed length of the fishing line has been pulled out, estimate a second final line winding diameter at the third time point based on the first information at the third time point, and calculate the line winding amount based on the first final line winding diameter, the initial line winding diameter information, the measured number of rotations, the second final line winding diameter, and the calculation formula, for the purpose of enabling measurement of fishing line length from spool rotation speed without using a line length measuring device and without being limited to the type of fishing line (See Furomoto, Para. 0006).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota (JP 2017163886 A) as applied to claims 1-3 and 5-6 above, and further in view of Maruyama (JP H09205951 A).
Regarding Claim 7, Ota is advanced above.
Ota teaches all the elements of the fishing line information learning system except for the controller being configured to generate table data indicating a relationship between the third information and the calculation formula.
However, Maruyama, Figures 1-12, teaches wherein the controller 70 is configured to generate table data indicating a relationship between the third information (spool information) and the calculation formula (“calculation base data corresponding to the type of spool”; See Maruyama, Para. 0067), and
store the table data in the first memory or the second memory 27 (See Maruyama, Para. 0052, 0058, 0078).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ota and Maruyama to provide the controller being configured to generate table data indicating a relationship between the third information and the calculation formula and store the table data in the first or second memory, as taught by Maruyama, for the purpose of allowing a user to travel with multiple spools of fishing line which do not need to be fully unwound and rewound at the fishing site prior to use with the line length calculating function of the fishing reel (i.e., each spool is linked with its specific formula which is based on spool information such as the outer diameter of the bobbin trunk) (See Maruyama, Para. 0002-0005, 0030).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota (JP 2017163886 A) as applied to claims 1-3 and 5-6 above, and further in view of Haefner (DE 9115827 U1).
Regarding Claim 8, Ota is advanced above.
Ota teaches all the elements of the fishing line information learning system except for a recess and the identification information display portion being disposed in the recess.
However, Haefner, Figures 1-2, teaches wherein the flange portion 2 has a recess 5, and
the identification information display portion 3 is disposed in the recess 5 (See Haefner, Para. 0019).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ota and Haefner to provide a recess and the identification information display portion being disposed in the recess, as taught by Haefner, for the purpose of allowing the user to remove and reattach the identification part or remove and attach a different identification part without the use of tools or leaving adhesive residue on the spool when the label is removed (See Haefner, Para. 0009-0013).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY DOMONIQUE JEFFERSON whose telephone number is 571-272-0403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:30am-7:30pm ET.
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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at 313-446-4858. 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.
/T.D.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights