DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits with reference to the above identified patent application filed on 05 March 2025. Claims 48 – 70 are pending and currently being examined.
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
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “tubing” of Claims 61 – 62 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 Objections
Claims 50 – 64 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Re Claim 50, the phrase “the into the interior” in Line 2 would be clearer if replaced with the phrase --into the interior--.
In Re Claim 53, the phrase “traversing longitudinally each section” would be clearer if replaced with the phrase --traversing longitudinally through each section--.
In Re Claim 57, there appears to be a spelling mistake in the word “neighbouring” which should be spelt --neighboring--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 50 – 64, 66 – 68 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 50, the limitation “for fluid contacting bearings of ends of the rotor for interaction thereof” is not clear as to what it means, and is therefore indefinite. For the purpose of prior art analysis, the limitation --for interacting with bearings at the ends of the rotor-- will be assumed instead.
In Re Claim 63, this claim recites the limitation “the indentation” in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art analysis, the limitation --an indentation-- will be assumed instead.
In Re Claim 66, the limitation “a rotor defined by a hollow body” in Line 4 appears to be a second positive recitation of the limitation “the rotor comprises a hollow body” in Line 7. For the purpose of prior art analysis, it will be assumed that they are the same, and that the limitation “the rotor comprises a hollow body” in Line 7 will be replaced with the limitation --the rotor defined by the hollow body--.
In Re Claim 68, this claim recites the limitation “the outer peripheries” in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art analysis, the limitation --an outer periphery-- will be assumed instead
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
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.
Claim(s) 69 and 70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Koerner (PG Pub US 20100231066 A1), or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lau (PG Pub US 20140292163 A1).
In Re Claim 69, the only figure of Koerner discloses a centrifugal pump assembly (one skilled in the art would appreciate that the change of direction from an axial flow through 17 to a radial flow through 18 as depicted by the flow arrows is characteristic of a centrifugal pump) comprising a shell (2, the portion where label 1 points to) comprising an inner space adapted to allow fluid flow from one end (to the right of the figure) to the other end (to the left of the figure)(paragraphs [0021], [0026]), an impeller (13) fluidly connected to the other end (paragraph [0028]), and an electric motor (3, 20) located within the inner space and adapted for fluid to traverse the electric motor (see flow arrows) for propulsion of the fluid (Abstract), the electric motor comprises a stator (3) and a rotor (5, 4) operatively connected to the impeller (13) and the stator (3) for rotation of the rotor (5, 4) during operation of the stator (3) (when the device operates as disclosed), the rotor (5, 4) comprising a blade assembly (11) for rotation with the rotor (5, 4) for propulsion of the fluid traversing the pump assembly and being attached to the impeller (13)(paragraph [0026]), wherein the shell (2, the portion where label 1 points to) is configured so that a fluid pathway (9) is defined around the stator (3) for cooling of the electric motor (3, 20) (paragraph [0021]).
As mentioned above, the examiner first contends that element (13) is an impeller of a centrifugal pump/fan. Alternatively, if it is not clear to applicant that (13) is a centrifugal-pump-impeller (not admitted to by examiner):
However, Lau discloses a centrifugal pump assembly (Figure 6; label 70 is described as a centrifugal fan in the Abstract) comprising a shell (90; paragraph [0027]) comprising an inner space adapted to allow fluid flow from one end (adjacent 92a) to the other end (adjacent 94), an impeller (70; paragraph [0027]) fluidly connected to the other end, and an electric motor (10; paragraph [0027]) located within the inner space and adapted for fluid to traverse the electric motor (10) for propulsion of the fluid (paragraph [0028]), the electric motor (10) comprises a stator (30) and a rotor (52) operatively connected to the impeller (70) and the stator (30) for rotation of the rotor (52) during operation of the stator (Abstract), the rotor (52) is attached to impeller (70)(see Abstract), wherein the shell (90) is configured so that a fluid pathway is defined around the stator (30) for cooling of the electric motor (paragraph [0028] states that fluid flows over the heat sink 40 which is exterior to the stator 30, therefore the fluid pathway is around the stator).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to substitute the “suitable apparatus (13)” of Koerner with the centrifugal fan impeller (70) of Lau because it is only a matter of substituting the broadly disclosed “suitable apparatus” with the specifically disclosed impeller, therefore the results of the substitution are predictable (This a rationale that can be used to support a conclusion of obviousness, see MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B) – "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." KSR Intl. Co. v. Teleflex Inc. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397; The rigid requirement of a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine known elements in order to show obviousness has been rejected. Id. At 398,419 (2007).
PNG
media_image1.png
506
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The only figure of Koerner annotated to show the centrifugal outlet
In Re Claim 70, Koerner / Lau disclose all the limitations of Claim 69, and Koerner further discloses a centrifugal outlet (see annotated figure above) at the other end of the shell for allowing fluid to exit the centrifugal pump assembly (through 18)(paragraph [0028]).
Although the centrifugal pump outlet is not “attached” at the other end of the shell, it is only a matter of spitting the housing (2) of Koerner into two pieces and joining them together, and calling the upper piece (represented by the annotated rectangle in the above figure) the centrifugal outlet, and the lower piece the shell.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to split the housing (2) of Koerner into a centrifugal outlet section and a shell section and joining them together, because it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements is routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, Section V-C).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 48, 50, 65 – 67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takura (PG Pub US 20010051097 A1) in view of Lee (PG Pub US 20080056883 A1).
In Re Claim 48, the Figure 13 embodiment of Takura discloses a pump assembly (title) comprising a shell (138), an inner casing (130) adapted to allow fluid therethrough comprising an inner space defining a first fluid pathway (through 111 in 108)(paragraphs [0067], [0068], [0070]), and an electric motor (102, 103; paragraph [0067]) located within the inner space and adapted for fluid to traverse the electric motor (through 111 in 108) for propulsion of the fluid (paragraph [0005]), the electric motor comprises a stator (102) and a rotor (103) operatively connected to the stator (102) for rotation of the rotor (103) during operation of the stator (102)(paragraph [0035]), the rotor (103) comprising a blade assembly (108) for propulsion of the fluid traversing the pump assembly (paragraph [0071]), wherein the shell (138) and/or inner casing (130) are configured so that a second fluid pathway (141) is defined around the inner casing (130) for cooling of the inner casing and the interior of the inner casing (this limitation does not make a structural distinction).
Takura does not disclose that the rotor is defined by a hollow body, and that the rotor comprising a blade assembly within the hollow body for rotation with the rotor.
However, Lee discloses an electric motor comprising a stator (40) and a rotor (30) defined by a hollow body (321) operatively connected to the stator (40) for rotation of the rotor (30) during operation of the stator (40) (paragraphs [0016],[0019]; Figure 3), the rotor (30) comprising a blade assembly (312) within the hollow body (321) for rotation with the rotor (30) for propulsion of the fluid traversing the pump assembly (paragraph [0019]; Figure 3), the rotor (30) defined by the hollow body (321) having an outer surface facing an inner surface of the stator (40), the outer surface comprising at least one pocket (best seen in Figure 1) adapted to receive at least one magnet (322)(paragraph [0019]; Figure 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
642
1138
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 13 of Takura and Figure 3 of Lee
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to substitute the rotor of Takura with the rotor of Lee (see annotated figure above) because it is only a matter of substituting one permanent magnet rotor with another permanent magnet rotor, therefore the results of the substitution are predictable (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B).
In Re Claim 50, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 48, and Takura discloses that the inner casing (130) is configured (via one of the holes 142 in connecting part 141a) for diverting a portion of fluid in the second fluid pathway (141) into the interior of the inner casing (130), for interacting (flow through 142 is adjacent to bearing 137, the interaction is that this portion of the flow cools the bearing and the cooling effect of bearing 137 is conductively transferred to bearing 113 via shaft 107) with bearings (113, 137) at the ends of the rotor (30) (paragraph [0070]; Figure 13).
In Re Claim 65, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 48, and Takura discloses that the blade assembly (108 which has been modified by Lee) is attached to an end (where bearing 113 is) of the inner casing (130) (paragraph [0053]; Figure 13).
In Re Claim 66, the Figure 13 embodiment of Takura discloses a pump assembly (title) comprising a shell (138), an inner casing (130) adapted to allow fluid therethrough comprising an inner space defining a first fluid pathway (through 111 in 108)(paragraphs [0067], [0068], [0070]), and an electric motor (102, 103; paragraph [0067]) located within the inner space and adapted for fluid to traverse the electric motor (through 111 in 108) for propulsion of the fluid (paragraph [0005]), the electric motor comprises a stator (102) and a rotor (103) operatively connected to the stator (102) for rotation of the rotor (103) during operation of the stator (102)(paragraph [0035]), the rotor (103) comprising a blade assembly (108) for propulsion of the fluid traversing the pump assembly (paragraph [0071]).
Takura does not disclose that the rotor is defined by a hollow body, and that the rotor comprising a blade assembly within the hollow body for rotation with the rotor.
However, Lee discloses an electric motor comprising a stator (40) and a rotor (30) defined by a hollow body (321) operatively connected to the stator (40) for rotation of the rotor (30) during operation of the stator (40) (paragraphs [0016],[0019]; Figure 3), the rotor (30) comprising a blade assembly (312) within the hollow body (321) for rotation with the rotor (30) for propulsion of the fluid traversing the pump assembly (paragraph [0019]; Figure 3), the rotor (30) defined by the hollow body (321) having an outer surface facing an inner surface of the stator (40), the outer surface comprising at least one pocket (best seen in Figure 1) adapted to receive at least one magnet (322)(paragraph [0019]; Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to substitute the rotor of Takura with the rotor of Lee because it is only a matter of substituting one permanent magnet rotor with another permanent magnet rotor, therefore the results of the substitution are predictable (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B).
In Re Claim 67, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 66, and Lee discloses that the outer surface (of 321) comprises a plurality of pockets (as depicted in Figure 1) arranged in a spaced apart relationship with respect to each other, each pocket comprising a curved magnet (322 is curved as depicted in Figure 1)(paragraph [0019]; Figure 1).
Claim(s) 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takura (PG Pub US 20010051097 A1) in view of Lee (PG Pub US 20080056883 A1) and further in view of Lau (PG Pub US 20140292163 A1).
In Re Claim 49, Takura and Lee disclose all the limitations of Claim 48, but they do not disclose a heat sink.
However, Lau discloses a heat sink (40, 42, 44) surrounding the stator (30)(Figure 4; Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the stator of Takura / Lee to incorporate a heat sink surrounding the stator as taught by Lau for the purpose of enhancing the cooling effect because the cooling fins (44) increase the surface area of the heat dissipating surface.
Claim(s) 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takura (PG Pub US 20010051097 A1) in view of Lee (PG Pub US 20080056883 A1) and as evidenced (MPEP 2112-IV) by Geisinger (PG Pub US 20050019184 A1).
In Re Claim 51, Takura and Lee disclose all the limitations of Claim 50, and the flow portion through one of the holes (142) of Takura must provide some level of cooling/lubrication to the bearing (137) which is conductively transferred to bearing (113) as evidenced by Geisinger (Figure 4) in paragraph [0076]: “draw product through plate 82 into the lower journal bearing and the thrust bearing to lubricate and cool them”.
Claim(s) 52 – 54 and 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takura (PG Pub US 20010051097 A1) in view of Lee (PG Pub US 20080056883 A1) and further in view of Yamane (PG Pub US 20150335803 A1).
In Re Claim 52, Takura and Lee disclose all the limitations of Claim 50 but they do not disclose a discharging section and a suction section.
However, Figures 1, 3 and 4 of Yamane disclose a casing having a discharging section (4) and a suction section (5/6)(paragraph [0061]), wherein the discharging section (4) has a first entry point (interface between 4 and 6) and a first exit point (1b), and the suction section (5/6) has a second entry point (1a) and a second exit point (interface between 4 and 5/6) (paragraph [0062]), the first entry point and the second exit point being adapted to be joined together (via connection between 41 and 61; paragraph [0072]) for defining the casing (assembly depicted in Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to split the inner casing of Takura / Lee into a suction section and discharge section as taught by Yamane because it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements is routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, Section V-C).
In Re Claim 53, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 52, and Yamane discloses that each of the sections (4, 5/6) comprises a passage (from 1a to 1b; Figure 4; paragraph [0062]) traversing longitudinally through each section for defining the first fluid pathway (the first fluid pathway of Takura is split into two sections in view of Yamane).
In Re Claim 54, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 52, and Yamane discloses that the discharging section (4) comprises an indentation (41) indenting into the first entry point, and the suction section comprises an indentation (61) indenting into the second exit point for defining the inner space adapted to receive at least partially the electric motor (portion 2 of the electric motor) when the discharging and the suction sections (4, 5/6) are joined together (paragraph [0068]; Figure 4).
In Re Claim 59, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 52, and Takura discloses an opening (142) at the location adjacent the first exit point (141a), the opening traversing the discharging section (i.e. part of the inner casing modified by Yamane) to permit fluid flow therethrough (paragraph [0070]).
Claim(s) 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takura (PG Pub US 20010051097 A1) in view of Lee (PG Pub US 20080056883 A1) and in view of Yamane (PG Pub US 20150335803 A1) and further in view of Yutaka (US Patent 3,398,687 A).
In Re Claim 55, Takura, Lee and Yamane disclose all the limitations of Claim 52, but they do not explicitly disclose that the shell has jacket sections joined together.
However, Figure 2 of Yutaka discloses a shell (11, 12) comprises a first jacket (12) for receiving the discharging section (14 of the inner casing), and a second jacket (11) for receiving the suction section (13 of the inner casing), the first and second jackets (11, 12) being adapted to be joined together to define the shell (Column 2, Lines 4 – 8).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to split the shell of Takura / Lee / Yamane into first jacket for the suction section and a second jacket for the discharge section as taught by Yutaka because it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements is routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, Section V-C).
Claim(s) 56 – 58 and 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takura (PG Pub US 20010051097 A1) in view of Lee (PG Pub US 20080056883 A1) and in view of Yamane (PG Pub US 20150335803 A1) and further in view of Khazanov (US Patent 5,616,973 A).
In Re Claim 56 and 57, Takura, Lee and Yamane disclose all the limitations of Claim 52, but they do not disclose ribs.
However, Khazanov discloses a shell (40) and inner casing (41) that form a fluid pathway (81), wherein an outer surface of the inner casing (41) comprises ribs (83) arranged in a spaced apart relationship with respect to each other around the outer surface, wherein neighboring ribs (83) define a plurality of the fluid pathways (81) having as side walls the neighboring ribs and as roofs the sections of the inner surface of the shell (40) located between the neighboring ribs (83) (Column 4, Line 56 – Column 5, Line 13; Column 5, Lines 29 – 39; Figures 1 – 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to provide ribs as taught by Khazanov in the second fluid pathway of Takura (which has been split into suction and discharge sections as taught by Yamane) in the apparatus of Takura / Lee / Yamane for the purpose of providing structural support between the shell and inner casing and for the purpose of increasing total surface area exposed to the fluid in the second flow pathway thus providing enhanced cooling (Column 5, Lines 35 – 38 of Khazanov).
In Re Claim 58, Takura, Lee and Yamane disclose all the limitations of Claim 52, but they do not disclose grooves.
However, Khazanov discloses a shell (40) and inner casing (41) that form a fluid pathway (81), wherein the outer surface of the inner casing (41) comprises a plurality of grooves (between lands 83), each groove extends longitudinally all the way along the fluid pathway Column 4, Line 56 – Column 5, Line 13; Column 5, Lines 29 – 39; Figures 1 – 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to provide grooves as taught by Khazanov on the outer surface of the inner casing of Takura (which has been split into suction and discharge sections as taught by Yamane) in the apparatus of Takura / Lee / Yamane for the purpose of providing structural support between the shell and inner casing and for the purpose of increasing total surface area exposed to the fluid in the second flow pathway thus providing enhanced cooling (Column 5, Lines 35 – 38 of Khazanov).
In Re Claim 60, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 58, and Khazanov discloses that each groove (between lands 83) has an open end at the outer periphery of the first entry point of the discharging section, because the groove traverses the entire inner casing (41)(Column 5, Lines 10 – 12), which includes the suction section and discharging section of the Yamane modification.
Claim(s) 68 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takura (PG Pub US 20010051097 A1) in view of Lee (PG Pub US 20080056883 A1) and further in view of Watson (PG Pub US 20090066174 A1).
In Re Claim 68, Takura and Lee disclose all the limitations of Claim 66, but they do not disclose a ballast for balancing the body of the rotor.
However, Figure 4 of Watson discloses a rotor (16) whose outer periphery comprises openings (41; paragraph [0024]) arranged in spaced apart relationship with respect to each other for receiving a ballast (32; paragraph [0024]) for balancing the body of the rotor (16)(paragraph [0024]; Title).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the body of the rotor of Takura / Lee to have openings for receiving a ballast as taught by Watson for the purpose of balancing the rotor (paragraph [0024]; Title of Takura).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 61 – 62 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.
Claims 63 – 64 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DNYANESH G KASTURE whose telephone number is (571)270-3928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 7:30 AM to 6:00 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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/D.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/NATHAN C ZOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746