DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action on the Merits. Claims 9-20 are currently pending and have been considered as follows.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 9-20 in the reply filed on 08/01/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
2. Acknowledgement is made that the present application is a national phase conversion of PCT/US2023/037166 filed on 11/10/2023, which claim priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/424,754 filed on 11/11/2022; U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/424,740 filed on 11/11/2022; U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/532,266 filed on 08/11/2023; and U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/532,269 filed on 08/11/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 10, 12, 14-15, and 17 is/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.
Regarding claim 10 (and similarly 14-15), the phrase “an angle of the chassis exceeds…” is unclear. It is unclear from which axis the angle exceeds. It is unclear if the angle exceeds a degree in the X-axis, Y-axis, or Z-axis. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting this limitation as any angle of the chassis with respect to any axis.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “decreases the distance between the chassis of the robotic cleaning device by retracting…” is unclear. It is unclear what is meant by the distance between the chassis. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting this limitation as “decreases the distance between the chassis of the robotic cleaning device and the target surface by retracting…”.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “decreases the increases between the chassis of the robotic cleaning device by extending one or more wheels…” is unclear. It is unclear what is meant by decrease the increases between the chassis. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting this limitation as “increases the distance between the chassis of the robotic cleaning device and the target surface by extending one or more wheels…”.
In the art rejections above, the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner. Any claim not explicitly rejected under this heading is rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 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.
6. Claims 9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20170001490, hereinafter Park) in view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi (US 11478118, hereinafter Ebrahimi).
Regarding claim 9, Park teaches a method of controlling a robotic cleaning device, the method (see at least Abstract: “Disclosed herein is a cleaning robot including an improved driving unit to escape from an undriveable state occurring under various driving conditions.”) comprising:
detecting a restricted mobility position of the robotic cleaning device (see at least [0004]: “A robot, such as a cleaning robot with a body having a low height, may be in an undriveable state (hereinafter referred to as a ‘stuck state’) when the cleaning robot enters a narrow gap under an obstacle (e.g., beneath a bed or a sofa) and thus an upper portion of the cleaning robot is caught in the narrow groove (hereinafter referred to as a ‘caught state’) or when the cleaning robot climbs onto an obstacle to cause the driving wheels of the cleaning robot to be lifted (hereinafter referred to as a ‘lifted state’).”; [0123]: “The controller 220 may sense this state using the current sensor 214 and determine the state as the stuck state occurring due to the ‘upper-portion-caught state’.”);
determining that an electrical current draw for a drive motor controlling rotation of one or more wheels of the robotic cleaning device is in a stuck state (see at least [0104]: “The current sensor 214 is installed in a power supply circuit (not shown), measures a load on the first driving motor 150 or the second driving motor 160, and transmits a result of measuring the load to the controller 220.”; [0123]: “The controller 220 may sense this state using the current sensor 214 and determine the state as the stuck state occurring due to the ‘upper-portion-caught state’.”);
activating an active suspension system to decrease the distance between a chassis of the robotic cleaning device and a target surface based on the determination that the electrical current draw for the drive motor is in the stuck state (see at least [0105]: “The controller 220 is configured to control overall operations of the cleaning robot 1, and controls the first driving motor 150 to move the cleaning robot 1 according to the motion command received via the input unit 200.”; [0122]: “As illustrated in FIGS. 15A to 15C, when the cleaning robot 1 enters a narrow groove in an obstacle A3, an upper portion of a front surface of the cleaning robot 1 is caught in the narrow groove (upper-portion-caught state'), causing the stuck state preventing the cleaning robot 1 from driving. In the stuck state occurring due to the ‘upper-portion-caught state’, both of the driving wheels 120 and both of the first driving motors 150 are in a constrained state.”; [0124]: “When it is determined that the cleaning robot 1 is in the stuck state occurring due to the ‘upper-portion-caught state’, the controller 220 operates the second driving motors 160 of both of the driving units 100. Driving power generated by the second driving motors 160 is delivered to the wheel frames 130 through the second power transfer gears 184 and the drive gear 182, thereby rotating the wheel frame 130. As the wheel frames 130 rotate, the driving wheels 120 are moved downward and an overall height H1 of the cleaning robot 1 thus relatively decreases.”).
Park fails to explicitly teach that the stuck state is when the electrical current draw is above a predetermined current range for the drive motor.
However, Ebrahimi teaches a method and system for an autonomous coverage robot that determines a stuck state when an electrical current draw is above a predetermined current range for the drive motor (see at least col. 5, lines 3-17: “When a wheel is obstructed, the wheel supports a larger load and the wheel draws a larger current to rotate. In some embodiments, an electrical current above a predetermined threshold may indicate a wheel obstruction and wheel retraction may be actuated. In some embodiments, a separate wheel motor may be used for each wheel and the amount of current used by each separate wheel motor may be monitored, thereby allowing the robotic floor-cleaning device to identify which wheels are obstructed and thus which wheels to retract.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park to incorporate the teachings of Ebrahimi and provide means to determine a stuck state when an electrical current draw is above a predetermined current range for the drive motor, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to establish a preset range to identify the stuck state for the system to recognize.
Regarding claim 11, modified Park teaches the limitations of claim 9. Park further teaches wherein detecting the restricted mobility position may include detecting that a downward force on one or more wheels of the robotic cleaning device exceed a force threshold value (see at least Figs. 15A-15C and [0121-124]: a stuck state is determined as “upper-portion-caught state” (downward force acting on the robot and wheels) when the downward force exceeds an amount that prevents the driving wheels to be restored.).
Regarding claim 12, modified Park teaches the limitations of claim 9. Park further teaches wherein the active suspension system decreases the distance between the chassis of the robotic cleaning device by retracting one or more wheels of the robotic cleaning device toward the chassis (see at least Figs. 7A-7B and [0096-0098]: each driving wheel 120 can be retracted to decrease the distance between the chassis of the robot and the floor.).
7. Claims 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20170001490, hereinafter Park) and Ebrahimi Afrouzi (US 11478118, hereinafter Ebrahimi) in view of Yoo et al. (US 20150150429, hereinafter Yoo).
Regarding claim 10, modified Park teaches the limitations of claim 9. Park further teaches detecting an angle of the chassis (see at least [0103]: “Examples of the tilt sensor 213 include not only a gyro sensor that directly measures the inclination of the cleaning robot 1 based on the direction of gravity but also a 3-axis acceleration sensor and a 3-axis angular velocity sensor that measure the inclination of cleaning robot 1 through sensor fusion. Also, the tilt sensor 213 may be a 2-axis tilt sensor capable of detecting whether the stuck state occurs, generating stuck conditions, and measuring a roll/pitch value by measuring the inclination of and a variation in the inclination of the cleaning robot 1.).
Park fails to explicitly teach an angle of the chassis exceeds a threshold angle.
However, Yoo teaches an apparatus and method for controlling a cleaning robot that detects whether an angle of a chassis exceeds a threshold angle (see at least [0033]: “The cleaning robot may further include a tilt sensor to measure an inclination of the cleaning robot, and the controller calculates an angle the cleaning robot has moved based on measurements of the encoder, measures an angle the cleaning robot has moved based on sensor information of the tilt sensor, and determines a traveling state of the cleaning robot by using the calculated angle of the cleaning robot and the measured angle of the cleaning robot.”; [0175]: “The second stuck candidate is detected based on an instantaneous angle difference of the cleaning robot 1. It is determined whether the cleaning robot 1 is in a traveling-impossible state by comparing the variation in the angle G2 calculated based on the sensor information of the tilt sensor 213 with the variation in the angle G1 calculated based on the measurements of the encoder 211 to check whether the difference between the variation in the angle G1 and the variation in the angle G2 is greater than a threshold.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park to incorporate the teachings of Yoo and provide a means to detect whether an angle of a chassis exceeds a threshold angle, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to set a limit for the angle so the robot can compare to [0175].
8. Claims 13 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20170001490, hereinafter Park) in view of Gilbert et al. (US 20080281470, hereinafter Gilbert).
Regarding claim 13, Park teaches a method of controlling a robotic cleaning device, the method (see at least Abstract: “Disclosed herein is a cleaning robot including an improved driving unit to escape from an undriveable state occurring under various driving conditions.”) comprising:
detecting a restricted mobility position of the robotic cleaning device (see at least [0004]: “A robot, such as a cleaning robot with a body having a low height, may be in an undriveable state (hereinafter referred to as a ‘stuck state’) when the cleaning robot enters a narrow gap under an obstacle (e.g., beneath a bed or a sofa) and thus an upper portion of the cleaning robot is caught in the narrow groove (hereinafter referred to as a ‘caught state’) or when the cleaning robot climbs onto an obstacle to cause the driving wheels of the cleaning robot to be lifted (hereinafter referred to as a ‘lifted state’).”);
determining that an electrical current draw for a drive motor controlling rotation of one or more wheels of the robotic cleaning device is in a slip state (see at least [0104]: “The current sensor 214 is installed in a power supply circuit (not shown), measures a load on the first driving motor 150 or the second driving motor 160, and transmits a result of measuring the load to the controller 220.”);
activating an active suspension system to increase the distance between a chassis of the robotic cleaning device and a target surface based on the determination that the electrical current draw for the drive motor is in the slip state (see at least Figs. 13A-13C and [0004]: “A robot, such as a cleaning robot with a body having a low height, may be in an undriveable state (hereinafter referred to as a ‘stuck state’) when the cleaning robot enters a narrow gap under an obstacle (e.g., beneath a bed or a sofa) and thus an upper portion of the cleaning robot is caught in the narrow groove (hereinafter referred to as a ‘caught state’) or when the cleaning robot climbs onto an obstacle to cause the driving wheels of the cleaning robot to be lifted (hereinafter referred to as a ‘lifted state’).”; [0105]: “The controller 220 is configured to control overall operations of the cleaning robot 1, and controls the first driving motor 150 to move the cleaning robot 1 according to the motion command received via the input unit 200.”; [0117]: “FIGS. 13A to 13C are diagrams illustrating a process in which a cleaning robot 1 escapes from the stuck state occurring due to a lifted phenomenon (a state in which one of driving wheels 120 of the cleaning robot 1 is lifted, thereby preventing the cleaning robot 1 from driving) in accordance with another embodiment of the present invention. FIGS. 14A to 14C are side views of FIGS. 13A to 13C, respectively.”; [0119]: “When it is determined that the cleaning robot 1 is in the stuck state, the controller 220 operates the second driving motor 160 at a part of the driving unit 100 adjacent to the lifted driving wheel 120…As the wheel frame 130 rotates, the lifted driving wheel 120 is moved downward toward the bottom surface A2. In this case, the wheel frame 130 may rotate from a third position P3 to a second position P2 and the lifted driving wheel 120 may move from the first falling position D1 to a second falling position D2.”).
Park fails to explicitly teach the slip state is when the electrical current draw is below the predetermined current range.
However, Gilbert teaches a method and system for an autonomous coverage robot that determines a lifted state when an electrical current draw is below a predetermined current range (see at least [0277]: “In certain implementations, a stasis sensor includes a drive motor current sensor which monitors the current (hereinafter the "drive current") drawn by a drive motor that turns one or more of the drive wheels for propelling the robot. The drive motor current sensor and the drive motor can both be carried by a drive wheel module…When the drive current is lower than a threshold value, the stasis sensor determines that the load on the wheels is too low (e.g., the wheels are slipping).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park to incorporate the teachings of Gilbert and provide a means determine a slip state when an electrical current draw is below a predetermined current range, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to establish a preset range to identify the slip state for the system to recognize.
Regarding claim 16, modified Park teaches the limitations of claim 13. Park further teaches wherein detecting the restricted mobility position may include detecting that a downward force on one or more wheels of the robotic cleaning device is lower than a force threshold range (see at least Figs. 7A-7B, 15A-15C, and [0112-115]: when a robot climbs on an obstacle, a lifted stuck state is determined when the driving wheels are lifted above the ground causing the robot to be stuck thus the downward force on the robot and wheels is lower than a threshold range.).
Regarding claim 17, modified Park teaches the limitations of claim 13. Park further teaches wherein the active suspension system decreases the increases between the chassis of the robotic cleaning device by extending one or more wheels of the robotic cleaning device away from the chassis (see at least Figs. 7A-7B and [0096-0098]: each driving wheel 120 can be extended to increase the distance between the chassis of the robot and the floor.).
Regarding claim 18, modified Park teaches the limitations of claim 13. Park further teaches wherein the robotic cleaning device includes a first wheel and a second wheel (see at least Figs. 2, 11A-11C and [0112]: driving wheels 120), and wherein increasing the distance between the chassis and the target surface includes extending both the first and the second wheel (see at least Figs. 7A-7B, 11A-11C, [0096-0098], and [0113]: each driving wheel 120 can be extended to increase the distance between the chassis of the robot and the floor.).
Regarding claim 19, modified Park teaches the limitations of claim 13. Park further teaches wherein the robotic cleaning device includes a first wheel driven by a first drive motor and a second wheel driven by a second drive motor (see at least Figs. 1-2, 5, and [0069]: “As illustrated in FIGS. 3 to 6, the driving unit 100 includes a housing 110, a driving wheel 120 that drives a body 10, a wheel frame 130 that supports the driving wheel 120 to be rotatable, an elastic member 140 that pressurizes the wheel frame 130, a first driving motor 150 that generates driving power for rotating the driving wheel 120, and a second driving motor 160 that generates driving power for rotating the wheel frame 130.”), and
wherein increasing the distance between the chassis and the target surface includes extending only the first wheel when the electrical current draw for the first drive motor is in the slip state (see at least Figs. 7A-7B, 11A-11C, 13A-13C, [0004], and [0105-0120]: each driving wheel 120 can be extended to increase the distance between the chassis of the robot and the floor when the electrical current draw for the motor indicate a lifted state (slip state).).
Park fails to explicitly teach the slip state is when the electrical current draw is below the predetermined current range.
However, Gilbert teaches a method and system for an autonomous coverage robot that determines a lifted state when an electrical current draw is below a predetermined current range (see at least [0277]: “In certain implementations, a stasis sensor includes a drive motor current sensor which monitors the current (hereinafter the "drive current") drawn by a drive motor that turns one or more of the drive wheels for propelling the robot. The drive motor current sensor and the drive motor can both be carried by a drive wheel module…When the drive current is lower than a threshold value, the stasis sensor determines that the load on the wheels is too low (e.g., the wheels are slipping).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park to incorporate the teachings of Gilbert and provide a means determine a slip state when an electrical current draw is below a predetermined current range, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to establish a preset range to identify the slip state for the system to recognize.
Regarding claim 20, Park teaches the limitations of claim 13. Park further teaches wherein the robotic cleaning device includes a first wheel driven by a first drive motor and a second wheel driven by a second drive motor (see at least Figs. 1-2, 5, and [0069]: “As illustrated in FIGS. 3 to 6, the driving unit 100 includes a housing 110, a driving wheel 120 that drives a body 10, a wheel frame 130 that supports the driving wheel 120 to be rotatable, an elastic member 140 that pressurizes the wheel frame 130, a first driving motor 150 that generates driving power for rotating the driving wheel 120, and a second driving motor 160 that generates driving power for rotating the wheel frame 130.”), and
wherein increasing the distance between the chassis and the target surface includes extending only the first wheel and the second wheel when the electrical current draw for the first drive motor and the second drive motor is in the slip state (see at least Figs. 7A-7B, 11A-11C, 13A-13C, [0004], and [0105-0120]: each driving wheel 120 can be extended individually to increase the distance between the chassis of the robot and the floor when the electrical current draw for the motor indicate a lifted state (slip state).).
Park fails to explicitly teach the slip state is when the electrical current draw is below the predetermined current range.
However, Gilbert teaches a method and system for an autonomous coverage robot that determines a lifted state when an electrical current draw is below a predetermined current range (see at least [0277]: “In certain implementations, a stasis sensor includes a drive motor current sensor which monitors the current (hereinafter the "drive current") drawn by a drive motor that turns one or more of the drive wheels for propelling the robot. The drive motor current sensor and the drive motor can both be carried by a drive wheel module…When the drive current is lower than a threshold value, the stasis sensor determines that the load on the wheels is too low (e.g., the wheels are slipping).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park to incorporate the teachings of Gilbert and provide a means determine a lifted state when an electrical current draw is below a predetermined current range, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to establish a preset range to identify the slip state for the system to recognize.
9. Claims 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20170001490, hereinafter Park) and Gilbert et al. (US 20080281470, hereinafter Gilbert) in view of Yoo et al. (US 20150150429, hereinafter Yoo).
Regarding claim 14, modified Park teaches the limitations of claim 13. Park further teaches detecting an angle of the chassis (see at least [0103]: “Examples of the tilt sensor 213 include not only a gyro sensor that directly measures the inclination of the cleaning robot 1 based on the direction of gravity but also a 3-axis acceleration sensor and a 3-axis angular velocity sensor that measure the inclination of cleaning robot 1 through sensor fusion. Also, the tilt sensor 213 may be a 2-axis tilt sensor capable of detecting whether the stuck state occurs, generating stuck conditions, and measuring a roll/pitch value by measuring the inclination of and a variation in the inclination of the cleaning robot 1.”).
Park fails to explicitly teach an angle of the chassis exceeds a threshold angle.
However, Yoo teaches an apparatus and method for controlling a cleaning robot that detects whether an angle of a chassis exceeds a threshold angle (see at least [0033]: “The cleaning robot may further include a tilt sensor to measure an inclination of the cleaning robot, and the controller calculates an angle the cleaning robot has moved based on measurements of the encoder, measures an angle the cleaning robot has moved based on sensor information of the tilt sensor, and determines a traveling state of the cleaning robot by using the calculated angle of the cleaning robot and the measured angle of the cleaning robot.”; [0175]: “The second stuck candidate is detected based on an instantaneous angle difference of the cleaning robot 1. It is determined whether the cleaning robot 1 is in a traveling-impossible state by comparing the variation in the angle G2 calculated based on the sensor information of the tilt sensor 213 with the variation in the angle G1 calculated based on the measurements of the encoder 211 to check whether the difference between the variation in the angle G1 and the variation in the angle G2 is greater than a threshold.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park to incorporate the teachings of Yoo and provide a means to detect whether an angle of a chassis exceeds a threshold angle, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to set a limit for the angle so the robot can compare to [0175].
Regarding claim 15, modified Park teaches the limitations of claim 14. Park further teaches increasing the distance between the chassis and the target surface based on an
angle of the chassis (see at least [0103]: “Examples of the tilt sensor 213 include not only a gyro sensor that directly measures the inclination of the cleaning robot 1 based on the direction of gravity but also a 3-axis acceleration sensor and a 3-axis angular velocity sensor that measure the inclination of cleaning robot 1 through sensor fusion. Also, the tilt sensor 213 may be a 2-axis tilt sensor capable of detecting whether the stuck state occurs, generating stuck conditions, and measuring a roll/pitch value by measuring the inclination of and a variation in the inclination of the cleaning robot 1.”; [0119]: “When it is determined that the cleaning robot 1 is in the stuck state, the controller 220 operates the second driving motor 160 at a part of the driving unit 100 adjacent to the lifted driving wheel 120…As the wheel frame 130 rotates, the lifted driving wheel 120 is moved downward toward the bottom surface A2. In this case, the wheel frame 130 may rotate from a third position P3 to a second position P2 and the lifted driving wheel 120 may move from the first falling position D1 to a second falling position D2.”).
Park fails to explicitly teach that the angle of the chassis exceeds a threshold angle.
However, Yoo teaches an apparatus and method for controlling a cleaning robot that detects when an angle of a chassis exceeds a threshold angle (see at least [0175]: “The second stuck candidate is detected based on an instantaneous angle difference of the cleaning robot 1. It is determined whether the cleaning robot 1 is in a traveling-impossible state by comparing the variation in the angle G2 calculated based on the sensor information of the tilt sensor 213 with the variation in the angle G1 calculated based on the measurements of the encoder 211 to check whether the difference between the variation in the angle G1 and the variation in the angle G2 is greater than a threshold.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park to incorporate the teachings of Yoo and provide a means to detect whether an angle of a chassis exceeds a threshold angle, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to set a limit for the angle so the robot can compare to [0175].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al. (US 20220079406) teaches an apparatus and system for a cleaning robot that comprises a lifting mechanism to raise the robot.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIEN MINH LE whose telephone number is (571)272-3903. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday (8:30am-5:30pm eastern time).
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, Khoi Tran can be reached on (571)272-6919. 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.M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
