DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are pending.
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.
NOT INVOKED DESPITE PRESENCE
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“means of an electric power transfer system” in claim 12;
“means of a communication system” in claim 12;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 10-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “a vehicle comprising the control unit according to claim 1.” It is unclear whether this vehicle is a new vehicle (such as the towing vehicle) or the same vehicle (a towed vehicle) recited in claim 1. For the limited purpose of examination, it will be considered a new vehicle.
Claim 11 recites “an electric oil pump,” it is unclear whether this is the same or different oil pump than the one recited in claim 1. For the limited purpose of examination, it will be considered a new pump.
Claim 12 recites “a vehicle with the control unit.” It is unclear whether this vehicle is a new vehicle (such as the towing vehicle) or the same vehicle (a towed vehicle) recited in claim 1. For the limited purpose of examination, it will be considered a new vehicle.
Claim 12 recites “at least one towed vehicle.” It is unclear whether this “towed vehicle” refers to the previous “vehicle with the control unit” in the preamble, or to the vehicle of claim 1. For the limited purpose of examination, it will be considered a new vehicle.
Claim 13 recites “at least one towed and switched-off vehicle.” It is unclear whether this refers to the same or different vehicle of claim 1. For the limited purpose of examination, it will be considered the same vehicle.
Claim 13 dependent on claim 1 recites “an electric oil pump of one or more towed and switched off vehicles.” Claim 1 does not specify whether the “electric oil pump” is a component of the “one or more towed and switched off vehicles.” It is unclear whether claim 14 refers to the same or different “oil pump” of claim 1, and whether it is meant to indicate the oil pump of claim 1 is attached to the towed vehicle of claim 1 or not. For the limited purpose of examination, it will be interpreted as a different oil pump.
Claim 14 dependent on claim 1 recites “an electric oil pump of one or more towed and switched off vehicles.” Claim 1 does not specify whether the “electric oil pump” is a component of the “one or more towed and switched off vehicles.” It is unclear whether claim 14 refers to the same or different “oil pump” of claim 1, and whether it is meant to indicate the oil pump of claim 1 is attached to the towed vehicle of claim 1 or not. For the limited purpose of examination, it will be interpreted as a different oil pump.
Claim 15 dependent on claim 1 recites “an electric oil pump of one or more towed and switched off vehicles.” Claim 1 does not specify whether the “electric oil pump” is a component of the “one or more towed and switched off vehicles.” It is unclear whether claim 14 refers to the same or different “oil pump” of claim 1, and whether it is meant to indicate the oil pump of claim 1 is attached to the towed vehicle of claim 1 or not. For the limited purpose of examination, it will be interpreted as a different oil pump.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McCrary (US 6,169,954).
PNG
media_image1.png
526
894
media_image1.png
Greyscale
McCrary fig 4
PNG
media_image2.png
610
884
media_image2.png
Greyscale
McCrary fig 7
Claim 1, McCrary discloses a control unit (fig 7, on-board computer / OBC 73, c 24 ln 34-45) for controlling electric oil pumps (hydraulic pump 81 is electrically powered by batteries, c 24 ln 34-40), wherein the control unit is configured to control at least one electric oil pump (OBC control for hydraulic braking, c 28 ln 53-55, braking is hydraulic, c 21 ln 17-18; OBC control of hydraulic pump 81 for control of coupling between vehicles, c 24 ln 34-50) of at least one towed and switched off vehicle (coupling can also be used to tow a disabled towed vehicle, c 16 ln 28-30, c 25 ln 1-4; furthermore control by the singe OBC is explained below).
Furthermore, McCrary discloses one OBC in a group may be designated the control Master for the group and exercise control over power and braking functions (c 28 ln 53-55); also, one controlling OBC may control a coupled group of vehicles by linking OBC control over the coupling, (c 24 ln 58-c 25 ln 3). Therefore, a single OBC can control the several vehicles in the group. The ODC can issue commands and communicate for linking the vehicles together (c 17 ln 30-33) which orchestrate entry and exit from the PTS (c 17 ln 23-33). And control the hydraulic-coupling system and joining and leaving of vehicles to each group (c 21 ln 44-c 22 ln 3). Therefore, the master OBC would implicitly control the local OBC which control their local hydraulic pump 81 for braking or coupling.
Claim 2, McCrary discloses the control unit according to claim 1, wherein the control unit (OBC 73) is configured to control the at least one oil pump (81) from a towing vehicle (one controlling OBC may control a coupled group of vehicles by linking OBC control over the coupling, c 24 ln 58-c 25 ln 3; coupling can also be used to tow a disabled towed vehicle, c 16 ln 28-30, c 25 ln 1-4; since the controlling OBC vehicle is implicitly functioning, it is not the towed disabled vehicle, since that vehicle is aiding in the propulsion of the disable vehicle it may be reasonably called a towing vehicle; examiner notes that in the vehicle transportation arts, by definition a vehicle in the act of towing may be a pulling or pushing vehicle and is not limited to only a pulling role, See definition of “Tow” obtained from https://www.maritime-glossary.com/cms/glossary/54-glossary-t/8940-tow.html on 23 June 2026).
Claim 3, McCrary discloses the control unit according to claim 2, wherein the control unit is configured to control a plurality of electric oil pumps (hydraulic pump 81 in each towed vehicle) in a plurality of vehicles (tow disabled vehicles, c 25 ln 2-3, vehicles is plural) being towed at the same time from the towing vehicle (towing vehicle explained in claim 2; a single MASTER OBC controls the hydraulic pump 81 for braking/coupling as explained in claim 1).
Claim 5, McCrary discloses the control unit according to claim 3, wherein the control unit is configured to be supplied with electric power by a battery of the towing vehicle (OBC 73 is powered by batteries 73, c 15 ln 42-46; towing vehicle has an OBC).
Claim 6, McCrary discloses the control unit according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to supply the at least one electric oil pump with electric power to enable operation (battery 87 power to hydraulic pump 81, c 24 ln 34-38), wherein the electric power is supplied via supply cables (power line 151, id; a separate power line 151 in each towed vehicle makes it a plurality), and when the at least one towed and switched off vehicle includes a plurality of towed vehicles (tow disabled vehicles, c 25 ln 2-3, vehicles is plural), the supply cables are arranged in parallel or in series (each power line 151 for each vehicle carries power from its battery pack independently of each other, which is parallel operation under a BRI; APPLICANT discloses the electrical power sources comprises a battery of towed vehicles, applicant’s par 0011; therefore using multiple towed vehicle batteries aligns with applicant’s disclosure).
Claim 7, McCrary discloses the control unit according to claim 6, wherein the control unit is configured to carry out data communication (commands are information that meet the plain meaning of data) with the at least one electric oil pump (commands for hydraulic braking, c 28 ln 53-55; commands for hydraulic coupling between vehicles, c 24 ln 34-50, c 17 ln 30-32), wherein the data communication takes place by way of control cables (control can be linked over the wired “contiguous control line” c 24 ln 62-65) and/or by way of radio connection (wireless radio / cell communication, c 20 ln 55-60).
Claim 9, McCrary discloses a system for the external control of oil pumps in towed vehicles wherein the system comprises; the control unit according to Claim 1, an electric power transfer system configured for supplying power to the oil pumps (power cable 151 to hydraulic pump 81, c 24 ln 34-40, each vehicle has its own power transfer system); a communication system configured for enabling communication by way of data between the oil pump and the control unit (OBC control for hydraulic braking, c 28 ln 53-55, braking is hydraulic, c 21 ln 17-18; OBC control of hydraulic pump 81 for control of coupling between vehicles, c 24 ln 34-50); a battery (87, c 15 ln 34-46) configured for supplying electric power to the control unit (to OBC, c 15 ln 46) and/or to the oil pumps (batteries 87 to oil pump, c 24 ln 38) and a display device (illumination and dash lights, c 15 ln 43-44).
Claim 10, McCrary discloses a vehicle comprising the control unit according to claim 1 (the towed and switched off vehicle of claim 1).
Claim 11, McCrary discloses an electric oil pump, wherein the electric oil pump is configured to be controlled by the control unit according to claim 1 (OBC control for hydraulic braking, c 28 ln 53-55, braking is hydraulic, c 21 ln 17-18; OBC control of hydraulic pump 81 for control of coupling between vehicles, c 24 ln 34-50).
Claim 12, McCrary disclose a vehicle group (plurality of PVs coupled together into a group by a Vehicle Coupling System, c 23 ln 35-50), comprising: a vehicle with the control unit (vehicle with one OBC in a group may be designated the control Master for the group and exercise control over power and braking functions, c 28 ln 53-55; ALTERNATELY one controlling OBC may control a coupled group of vehicles by linking OBC control over the coupling, c 24 ln 58-c 25 ln 3) according to Claim 1:
at least one towed vehicle (coupling can also be used to tow a disabled towed vehicle, c 16 ln 28-30, c 25 ln 1-4); and
one or more electric oil pumps (81) of the at least one towed vehicle connected to the control unit (claim 1 discusses how each pump 81 controlled by each vehicle’s OBC to a master OBC) by means of an electric power transfer system configured to supply power to the one or more electric oil pumps (first of two alternates; McCrary is silent on connection to the master OBC via power supply) and/or by means of a communication system(second of two alternates; “contiguous control line” c 24 ln 62-65; or wireless radio / cell communication, c 20 ln 55-60) configured to enable data transfer between the one or more oil pumps and the control unit (data between BC, c 20 ln 17, 23; single OBC control of braking and coupling requires transfer of data to the other OBC in the group, at the least that data must include the commands for braking and coupling, c 17 ln 30-31; the disclosure of single OBC control of the group is discussed at claim 1).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 4, 8, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCrary in view of Crawford (US 2007/0257551).
Examiner notes that claims 4, 8, 13-15 are all rejected under the same theory, that McCrary does not disclose communication of a fault in the electric oil pumps of a towed vehicle, and that Crawford cures this by teaching communicating a fault in the hydraulic braking system of a towed trailer.
Claim 4, McCrary discloses the control unit according to claim 3.
McCrary is silent on wherein the control unit is configured to recognize a fault in one of the plurality of electric oil pumps it is controlling by evaluating signals emitted by at least one of the plurality of electric oil pumps.
Crawford teaches a towing vehicle monitoring the supply of hydraulic fluid pressure controlling the brake (par 0039) in a disabled vehicle, and triggering an alarm when the hydraulic pressure is insufficient in the towed vehicle (par 0035) thereby allowing the towing vehicle to take action related to the hydraulic system or brakes (par 0043).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the OBC hydraulic brake control and communication system of the towed vehicles of McCrary to alert when the hydraulic brake system of a towed vehicle is out of the proper range as taught by Crawford thereby allowing the control system to take appropriate action and improve the safety of the vehicles.
It is within the general skill of an ordinary worker in the art to modify McCrary so that the OBC communication system of the towed vehicle to send a signal to the master OBC of the alarm state taught by Crawford. This combination has a reasonable expectation of success because the McCrary OBC system, braking system, and communication system are being used to transmit control data in the same way in the combination as it is in its individual reference. And Crawford is being used to alert to hydraulic brake pressure in a towed vehicle in the combination in the same way that it is alerting on hydraulic brake pressure in its individual reference.
Claim 8, McCrary discloses the control unit according to claim 1. McCrary is silent on wherein the control unit is configured to emit information to the towing vehicle and/or to a display device about the current conditions of the at least one oil pump and/or about recognized faults.
Crawford teaches a towing vehicle monitoring the supply of hydraulic fluid pressure controlling the brake (par 0039) in a disabled vehicle, and triggering an alarm when the hydraulic pressure is insufficient in the towed vehicle (par 0035) thereby allowing the towing vehicle to take action related to the hydraulic system or brakes (par 0043).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the OBC hydraulic brake control and communication system of the towed vehicles of McCrary to alert when the hydraulic brake system of a towed vehicle is out of the proper range as taught by Crawford thereby allowing the control system to take appropriate action and improve the safety of the vehicles.
It is within the general skill of an ordinary worker in the art to modify McCrary so that the OBC communication system of the towed vehicle to send a signal to the master OBC of the alarm state taught by Crawford. This combination has a reasonable expectation of success because the McCrary OBC system, braking system, and communication system are being used to transmit control data in the same way in the combination as it is in its individual reference. And Crawford is being used to alert to hydraulic brake pressure in a towed vehicle in the combination in the same way that it is alerting on hydraulic brake pressure in its individual reference.
Claim 13, McCrary discloses a method for controlling one or more electric oil pumps (81);
of at least one towed and switched-off vehicle (coupling can also be used to tow a disabled towed vehicle, c 16 ln 28-30, c 25 ln 1-4), the method comprising:
providing the control unit according to claim 1;
providing at least one towed and switched off vehicle having an electric oil pump coupled to the control unit (each vehicle oil pump 81 is connected to the master OBC for control of braking and coupling, Explained at claim 1):
transferring data between the electric oil pump and the control unit (data for at least the command to brake or couple, c 17 ln 30-31, Explained at claim 12).
McCrary is silent on detecting a fault in the electric oil pump of at one or more of the at least one towed and switched off vehicle.
Crawford teaches a towing vehicle monitoring the supply of hydraulic fluid pressure controlling the brake (par 0039) in a disabled vehicle, and triggering an alarm when the hydraulic pressure is insufficient in the towed vehicle (par 0035) thereby allowing the towing vehicle to take action related to the hydraulic system or brakes (par 0043).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the OBC hydraulic brake control and communication system of the towed vehicles of McCrary to alert when the hydraulic brake system of a towed vehicle is out of the proper range as taught by Crawford thereby allowing the control system to take appropriate action and improve the safety of the vehicles.
It is within the general skill of an ordinary worker in the art to modify McCrary so that the OBC communication system of the towed vehicle to send a signal to the master OBC of the alarm state taught by Crawford. This combination has a reasonable expectation of success because the McCrary OBC system, braking system, and communication system are being used to transmit control data in the same way in the combination as it is in its individual reference. And Crawford is being used to alert to hydraulic brake pressure in a towed vehicle in the combination in the same way that it is alerting on hydraulic brake pressure in its individual reference.
Claim 14, McCrary discloses a computer program (each OBC 73 has programming instructions, c 19 ln 39, 60, c 20 ln 2), containing commands which, when the computer program is run on a computer, enable it to carry out a method comprising:
transferring data (data for at least the command to brake or couple, c 17 ln 30-31, Explained at claim 12) between an electric oil pump of one or more towed and switched off vehicles and the control unit according to Claim 1.
McCrary is silent on detecting a fault in the electric oil pump of the one or more towed and switched off vehicle.
Crawford teaches a towing vehicle monitoring the supply of hydraulic fluid pressure controlling the brake (par 0039) in a disabled vehicle, and triggering an alarm when the hydraulic pressure is insufficient in the towed vehicle (par 0035) thereby allowing the towing vehicle to take action related to the hydraulic system or brakes (par 0043).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the OBC hydraulic brake control and communication system of the towed vehicles of McCrary to alert when the hydraulic brake system of a towed vehicle is out of the proper range as taught by Crawford thereby allowing the control system to take appropriate action and improve the safety of the vehicles.
It is within the general skill of an ordinary worker in the art to modify McCrary so that the OBC communication system of the towed vehicle to send a signal to the master OBC of the alarm state taught by Crawford. This combination has a reasonable expectation of success because the McCrary OBC system, braking system, and communication system are being used to transmit control data in the same way in the combination as it is in its individual reference. And Crawford is being used to alert to hydraulic brake pressure in a towed vehicle in the combination in the same way that it is alerting on hydraulic brake pressure in its individual reference.
Claim 15, McCrary discloses a computer-readable medium, wherein the computer-readable medium contains computer program codes for carrying out method comprising:
transferring data (data for at least the command to brake or couple, c 17 ln 30-31, Explained at claim 12) between an electric oil pump of one or more towed and switched off vehicles and the control unit according to Claim 1.
McCrary is silent on detecting a fault in the electric oil pump of the one or more towed and switched off vehicle.
Crawford teaches a towing vehicle monitoring the supply of hydraulic fluid pressure controlling the brake (par 0039) in a disabled vehicle, and triggering an alarm when the hydraulic pressure is insufficient in the towed vehicle (par 0035) thereby allowing the towing vehicle to take action related to the hydraulic system or brakes (par 0043).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the OBC hydraulic brake control and communication system of the towed vehicles of McCrary to alert when the hydraulic brake system of a towed vehicle is out of the proper range as taught by Crawford thereby allowing the control system to take appropriate action and improve the safety of the vehicles.
It is within the general skill of an ordinary worker in the art to modify McCrary so that the OBC communication system of the towed vehicle to send a signal to the master OBC of the alarm state taught by Crawford. This combination has a reasonable expectation of success because the McCrary OBC system, braking system, and communication system are being used to transmit control data in the same way in the combination as it is in its individual reference. And Crawford is being used to alert to hydraulic brake pressure in a towed vehicle in the combination in the same way that it is alerting on hydraulic brake pressure in its individual reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kortesalmi (US 2016/0176252) teaches a trailer which notifies the towing vehicle of a hydraulic loss of pressure.
Doto (US 5,713,639) teaches a hydraulic brake device for towed cars on rolling stock which sends error signals to, and receives command signals from the train powered car.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5354. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-1800.
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.
/GEOFFREY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights