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 .
Status of Claims
This is the first action on the merits of application 19/185,605 filed on April 22, 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “3208” in Fig. 32.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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
Claim 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 18, line 2, it is suggested to amend “the air flow” to --the airflow-- to maintain more consistent terminology throughout the claims.
In claim 18, line 3, it is suggested to amend “one grow pathway” to --one growing pathway-- to maintain more consistent terminology throughout the claims.
In claim 19, line 2, it is suggested to amend “between plurality of vents” to --between the plurality of vents-- to more clearly refer back to the “plurality of vents” introduced in claim 18.
In claim 20, line 3, it is suggested to amend “the air flow” to --the airflow-- to maintain more consistent terminology throughout the claims.
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 6-7, 13-15, and 18-20 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the air handler" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The element “an air handler” is introduced in claim 4, line 2; however, claim 6 is not dependent upon claim 4. It is thus unclear what the “air handler” is and how it structurally relates to other elements of the system. Claim 7 is similarly rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 6.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the array of grow pathways” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Particularly, it is unclear whether the “array” refers to the “plurality of growing pathways” recited in claim 1 or to a different element. Based on the Examiner’s interpretation of the instant invention, it is suggested to amend the limitation to read as --the plurality of growing pathways--. Claim 14 is similarly rejected by virtue of dependency upon claim 13.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the loading zone" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is thus unclear what the “loading zone” is, whether it relates to the previously recited “loading lane”, and how it structurally relates to other elements of the system. Based on the Examiner’s interpretation of the instant invention, it is suggested to either amend all recitations of the “loading lane” to read as --loading zone-- or to amend the all recitations of the “loading zone” to read as --loading lane--, such that consistent terminology is used throughout the claims.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the array of grow pathways” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Particularly, it is unclear whether the “array” refers to the “plurality of growing pathways” recited in claim 1 or to a different element. Based on the Examiner’s interpretation of the instant invention, it is suggested to amend the limitation to read as --the plurality of growing pathways--. Claim 19 is similarly rejected by virtue of dependency upon claim 18.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "a number of the plurality of manifolds" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the plurality of manifolds” in the claim. The element “a plurality of manifolds” is introduced in claim 17, lines 1-2; however, claim 20 is not dependent upon claim 17. It is thus unclear what the “plurality of manifolds” is and how it structurally relates to other elements of the system.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 and 10-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,302,811. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations of claims 1-20 of application 19/185,605 are recited in claims 1-8 and 10-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,302,811.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho et al. (US 2020/0214228 A1), hereinafter Cho.
Regarding claim 1, Cho discloses an indoor growing facility (plant factory 1) comprising:
a climate control apparatus (air circulation supply unit 50) configured to produce a plurality of streams of airflow (fig. 7, represented by arrows), each stream of airflow having predetermined climate conditions (para [0099], thermo-hygrostat 51 regulates temperature and humidity of streams of airflow); and
a plurality of growing pathways (rows of planting beds 30) wherein each growing pathway of the plurality of growing pathways is isolated from an adjacent growing pathway to allow introduction of a stream of airflow of the plurality of streams of airflow into each growing pathway (fig. 4 and 7, individual streams of airflow are introduced to each row of planting beds 30 via air supply tubes 53).
Regarding claim 2, Cho discloses the indoor growing facility of claim 1, and further discloses wherein each stream of airflow of the plurality of streams of airflow (fig. 7, represented by arrows) has substantially similar climate conditions (para [0103], air temperature and humidity are uniformly maintained).
Regarding claim 3, Cho discloses the indoor growing facility of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the predetermined climate conditions comprise air speed, temperature, and humidity (para [0099] and [0101]).
Regarding claim 4, Cho discloses the indoor growing facility of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the climate control apparatus (air circulation supply unit 50) comprises an air handler (thermo-hygrostat 51) coupled to a distribution assembly (comprises air supply pipe 52 and air supply tubes 53), the distribution assembly comprising a plurality of channels (air supply tubes 53) to separate and divide an initial airflow (fig. 7, represented by rightmost arrow) into the plurality of streams of airflow (fig. 7, airflow divided amongst air supply tubes 53).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Cho discloses the indoor growing facility of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the climate control apparatus (air circulation supply unit 50) further comprises a return system (comprises air discharge tubes 54 and air return pipes 55) coupled to the air handler (thermo-hygrostat 51) that is configured to return the plurality of streams of airflow (fig. 7, represented by arrows) from each of the growing pathways (rows of planting beds 30) to the air handler (fig. 7; para [0102], airflow is returned to thermo-hygrostat 51 via air return pipes 55).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Cho discloses the indoor growing facility of claim 6, and further discloses wherein the airflow is modified after the airflow is returned from the plurality of growing pathways to have the predetermined climate conditions before the airflow is re-introduced into the plurality of growing pathways (fig. 7; para [0099]-[0103], climate conditions of circulated airflow are regulated by thermo-hygrostat 51 (temperature and humidity) and blades 53a within air supply tubes 53 (speed)).
Regarding claim 9, Cho discloses the indoor growing facility of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the plurality of growing pathways (rows of planting beds 30) are defined by a plurality of vertical barriers (vertical cultivation table frames 22) and a plurality of horizontal barriers (horizontal cultivation table frames 23; fig. 5-6).
Regarding claim 10, Cho discloses the indoor growing facility of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the climate control apparatus (air circulation supply unit 50) is separated from the plurality of growing pathways (rows of planting beds 30) by an enclosure (building structure 2; fig. 7).
Regarding claim 11, Cho discloses the indoor growing facility of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the plurality of growing pathways (rows of planting beds 30) are defined by a growing structure (cultivation layer 6, 7; fig. 3) comprising:
a plurality of vertical barriers (vertical cultivation table frames 22) and a plurality of horizontal barriers (horizontal cultivation table frames 23; fig. 5-6);
a plenum wall (air supply tube 53) positioned on a first side (right side shown in fig. 7) of the growing structure configured to supply the plurality of streams of airflow (fig. 7, represented by arrows) into the plurality of growing pathways (fig. 7); and
a return wall (air discharge tube 54) positioned at a second side (left side shown in fig. 7) of the growing structure opposite to the first side configured to return air from the growing structure to the first side (fig. 7; para [0100]-[0102], air is directed to thermo-hygrostat 51 via air return pipes 55, then is directed back to air supply tube 53).
Regarding claim 16, Cho discloses the indoor growing facility of claim 11, and further discloses wherein the plenum wall (air supply tube 53) is coupled to a distribution assembly (air supply pipe 52) to separate an initial airflow from an air handler (thermo-hygrostat 51) into each stream of airflow of the plurality of streams of airflow (fig. 7, represented by arrows).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2020/0214228 A1), hereinafter Cho, in view of Kinnis (US 2004/0194371 A1), hereinafter Kinnis.
Regarding claim 5, Cho discloses the indoor growing facility of claim 4, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the distribution assembly further comprises a plurality of manifolds coupled to the plurality of channels, each manifold of the plurality of manifolds comprising at least one vent configured to introduce one stream of airflow to one growing pathway.
However, Kinnis is in the field of indoor growing facilities (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the distribution assembly (comprising supply air duct 18, branch tube manifolds 52, and flexible interconnect tubes 53) further comprises a plurality of manifolds (branch tube manifolds 52) coupled to the plurality of channels (flexible interconnect tubes 53), each manifold of the plurality of manifolds comprising at least one vent (branch tube outlet 54) configured to introduce one stream of airflow to one growing pathway (para [0075]-[0076]; note that each branch tube outlet 54 may introduce one stream of airflow, as indicated by each dashed line in air distribution array 50 and as shown in fig. 5, to one growing pathway).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the indoor growing facility with distribution assembly and plurality of channels of Cho to incorporate the plurality of manifolds and plurality of vents as taught by Kinnis with a reasonable expectation of success to further divide airflow such that the direction in which air is dispensed is better controlled and to more directly deliver the air to plants within the indoor growing facility.
Regarding claim 17, Cho discloses the indoor growing facility of claim 11, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the plenum wall comprises a plurality of manifolds, each manifold of the plurality of manifolds positioned adjacent to one another to form the plenum wall.
However, Kinnis is in the field of indoor growing facilities (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the plenum wall (fig. 5, left side wall of greenhouse A) comprises a plurality of manifolds (branch tube manifolds 52), each manifold of the plurality of manifolds positioned adjacent to one another to form the plenum wall (fig. 5; para [0075]-[0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the indoor growing facility with plenum wall of Cho to incorporate the plurality of manifolds positioned adjacent to one another as taught by Kinnis with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure that airflow is dispensed more evenly across the entirety of the growing structure.
Regarding claim 18, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Cho as modified discloses the indoor growing facility of claim 17, and further discloses wherein each manifold of the plurality of manifolds (from Kinnis, branch tube manifolds 52) comprises a plurality of vents (from Kinnis, branch tube outlet 54) through which the air flow exits each manifold (from Kinnis, fig. 5; para [0076]), each vent of the plurality of vents aligned with one grow pathway of the array of grow pathways (from Kinnis, para [0075]-[0076]; note that each branch tube outlet 54 may introduce one stream of airflow, as indicated by each dashed line in air distribution array 50 and as shown in fig. 5, to one growing pathway).
Regarding claim 20, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Cho as modified discloses the indoor growing facility of claim 16, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the distribution assembly comprises a plurality of channels coupled between the air handler and the plenum wall to separate the air flow, wherein a number of the plurality of channels corresponds to a number of the plurality of manifolds, each channel of the plurality of channels coupled to one manifold of the plurality of manifolds.
However, Kinnis is in the field of indoor growing facilities (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the distribution assembly (comprising supply air duct 18, branch tube manifolds 52, and flexible interconnect tubes 53) comprises a plurality of channels (flexible interconnect tubes 53) coupled between the air handler (air processing unit 12) and the plenum wall (fig. 5, left side wall of greenhouse A) to separate the air flow (fig. 5), wherein a number of the plurality of channels corresponds to a number of the plurality of manifolds (fig. 5), each channel of the plurality of channels coupled to one manifold of the plurality of manifolds (fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the indoor growing facility with distribution assembly of Cho to incorporate the plurality of channels coupled to the plurality of manifolds as taught by Kinnis with a reasonable expectation of success to divide airflow and ensure that airflow is accurately directed at plants growing within the growing structure.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2020/0214228 A1), hereinafter Cho, in view of Zimmerman (US 2019/0313588 A1), hereinafter Zimmerman.
Regarding claim 8, Cho discloses the indoor growing facility of claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein each stream of airflow of the plurality of streams of airflow comprise a laminar flow.
However, Zimmerman is in the field of plant cultivation (title; abstract) and teaches wherein each stream of airflow of the plurality of streams of airflow comprise a laminar flow (para [0042], lines 9-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the indoor growing facility with plurality of streams of airflow of Cho to incorporate the teaching of laminar streams of airflow as taught by Zimmerman with a reasonable expectation of success to provide uniform climate conditions to plants, thereby optimizing the growth and proliferation of the plants (para [0042]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 2020/0214228 A1), hereinafter Cho, in view of Esaki et al. (US 2016/0014977 A1), hereinafter Esaki.
Regarding claim 12, Cho discloses the indoor growing facility of claim 11, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the growing structure further comprises a loading lane positioned adjacent the plurality of growing pathways and a loading elevator positioned in the loading lane, wherein the loading elevator is configured to move in the loading lane to selectively load plants into one growing pathway of the plurality of growing pathways.
However, Esaki is in the field of indoor growing facilities (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the growing structure (building 1) further comprises a loading lane (defined by rails 5-1) positioned adjacent the plurality of growing pathways (rows of organism containers 2) and a loading elevator (conveying device 5; para [0172], conveying device may be an elevator) positioned in the loading lane (fig. 1), wherein the loading elevator is configured to move in the loading lane to selectively load plants into one growing pathway of the plurality of growing pathways (para [0164] and [0041], conveying device 5 moves along rails 5-1 and may be used to load plants into cultivation unit 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the indoor growing facility with growing structure of Cho to incorporate the loading lane and loading elevator as taught by Esaki with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce the time and user workload required to load plants into the growing structure (para [0164]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Cho et al. (US 2020/0214228 A1), hereinafter Cho, in view of Esaki et al. (US 2016/0014977 A1), hereinafter Esaki, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Kaplita et al. (WO 2021/202827 A1), hereinafter Kaplita.
Regarding claim 15, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Cho as modified discloses the indoor growing facility of claim 12, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the growing structure further comprises a propagation zone positioned between the loading zone and the return wall, the propagation zone comprising a plurality of rows for supporting plants during a propagation stage of growth.
However, Kaplita is in the field of indoor growing facilities (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the growing structure (multi-layer hydroponics grow system 200) further comprises a propagation zone (first carrier path 104a; para [0015], the bottom layer, or first carrier path 104a, is interpreted as a propagation zone since it is capable of supporting propagated plants in an early stage of development, as shown in fig. 2D) positioned between the loading zone (first end 101 with first elevator 144; fig. 2A) and the return wall (upper wall of system 200, comprising main air return duct 140; fig. 2A-2B), the propagation zone comprising a plurality of rows (defined by quadrilateral openings 320) for supporting plants during a propagation stage of growth (fig. 3, note that quadrilateral tray carrier 318 shown in fig. 3 is one of a number of potential crop carriers 108 that can be received in the first carrier path 104a, as shown in fig. 2D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the indoor growing facility with growing structure with loading lane and return wall of Cho as modified to incorporate the propagation zone as taught by Kaplita with a reasonable expectation of success to provide climate-controlled air to younger, smaller plants.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Cho et al. (US 2020/0214228 A1), hereinafter Cho, in view of Kinnis (US 2004/0194371 A1), hereinafter Kinnis, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Van Ekeren (US 3,012,493 A), hereinafter Van Ekeren.
Regarding claim 19, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Cho as modified discloses the indoor growing facility of claim 18, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein each manifold of the plurality of manifolds comprises a diverter positioned centrally between plurality of vents, the diverter having a sloped surface to guide airflow toward each vent of the plurality of vents.
However, Van Ekeren is in the field of ventilation systems (title; abstract) and teaches wherein each manifold (“air-box” col 3, lines 22-23) of the plurality of manifolds comprises a diverter (divergent nozzle 9) positioned centrally between plurality of vents (grille plates 3, 4, 5, 6; fig. 1-2), the diverter having a sloped surface (blades 10, 11 are sloped) to guide airflow toward each vent of the plurality of vents (fig. 1; col 2, lines 61-68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the indoor growing facility with manifolds and vents of Cho as modified to incorporate the diverter positioned centrally between the vents as taught by Van Ekeren with a reasonable expectation of success to direct air entering the manifold toward each vent and ensure more even distribution of air across all vents.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA M HUEBNER whose telephone number is (703)756-4560. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM 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, Kimberly Berona, can be reached at (571) 272-6909. 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.
/E.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647