DETAILED ACTION
This is a first office action in response to application 19/425,984 filed 12/18/2025, in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Currently claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In reviewing a claim for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, the examiner must consider the claim as a whole to determine whether the claim apprises one of ordinary skill in the art of its scope and, therefore, serves the notice function required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, by providing clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement of the patent. See, e.g., Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 216 F.3d 1372, 1379, 55 USPQ2d 1279, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In this particular instance, the metes and bounds of the phrase “the force sensing unit is located around the vibration actuator” cannot be readily ascertained a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement. In other words, the metes and bound of “located around” cannot be definitively determined.
The term “around” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “around” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 14, 16, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coni et al. United States Patent No. 5,801,682 hereinafter Coni.
Consider Claim 1:
Coni discloses an electronic device, comprising: (Coni, See Abstract.)
a base; (Coni, Column 3-4, [0057], “A base plate 15 may be positioned below the first sensor 10 to be spaced apart therefrom in a vertical direction, and the base plate 15 may be disposed to face the second surface 12 of the first sensor 10.”)
a display unit, disposed on the base; (Coni, Column 3-4, See Fig. 5 display device 16.)
a force sensing unit, comprising: (Coni, Column 3-4, See Fig. 5 gauges 7A to 7D.)
a first fixing element, connected to the base; a second fixing element, connected to the display unit; a connecting rod, partially disposed between the first fixing element and the second fixing element; and (Coni, Column 3-4, See Fig. 5 item 19 and 22.)
a sensing circuit, disposed on the connecting rod; and (Coni, Column 3-4, See Fig. 5 item 7A-D.)
an elastic element, surrounding at least one of the first fixing element and the second fixing element. (Coni, Column 3-4, See Fig. 5 item flexible washer 23.)
PNG
media_image1.png
207
385
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Consider Claim 14:
Coni discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the elastic element is a solid elastic element. (Coni, Column 3-4, See Fig. 5 item flexible washer 23.)
Consider Claim 16:
Coni discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein a first support pillar of the base and a second support pillar of the display unit are arranged in a staggered manner. (Coni, Column 3-4, See Fig. 5 item 19 and 22.)
Consider Claim 17:
Coni discloses the electronic device according to claim 16, wherein the first fixing element of the force sensing unit is connected to and fixed on the first support pillar of the base, and the second fixing element of the force sensing unit is connected to and fixed on the second support pillar of the display unit. (Coni, Column 3-4, See Fig. 5 item 19 and 22.)
Consider Claim 20:
Coni discloses the electronic device according to claim 19, wherein the force sensing unit is located around the vibration actuator. (Coni, Column 5, “(13) FIG. 8 shows three different cases for a square surface, in the following order: there is no touching of the surface, there is touching (with pressure on the surface) near the corner 1A on the diagonal A-C, and there is touching (again with pressure) close to its center. This touching introduces a capacitance between the touch point and the ground (through the user). With the resultant resistance between the point and the corner that is grounded, this capacitance forms a divider bridge with respect to the voltage at the terminal 4A. It is assumed that, during at least one full cycle of the multiplexer 4, the user's finger does not move, in other words the cycles of the multiplexer are very short as compared with the time during which the user applies pressure to the surface 1. In the former case, the four voltages collected are identical due to the geometrical, and hence electrical, symmetries of the surface.”)
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coni et al. United States Patent No. 5,801,682 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshitani et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0149506 A1 hereinafter Yoshitani.
Consider Claim 3:
Coni teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, however does not specify wherein the connecting rod surrounds the elastic element.
Yoshitani however teaches that it was a known technique to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the connecting rod surrounds the elastic element. (Yoshitani, [0058-0063], [0059], “The resilient member 61 is formed of a material excellent in a vibration absorbing property, such as rubber. The resilient member 61 is provided with a cylindrical base part 601, and a fitting groove 602 disposed on an outer periphery of the base part 601. The fitting groove 602 is disposed on the outer periphery of the base part 601 over an entire periphery thereof.”)
It therefore would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide an elastic element that fits within the surrounding connecting bar as this was a known technique in view of Yoshitani and would have been utilized for the art recognized purpose of the vibration of the display part due to the displacement thereof in the thickness direction is damped by the shock absorbers. (Yoshitani, [0194-0196])
Consider Claim 18:
Coni discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, however does not appear to suggest wherein a quantity of the elastic element is greater than or equal to a quantity of the force sensing unit.
Yoshitani however teaches that it was a known technique to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to suggest wherein a quantity of the elastic element is greater than or equal to a quantity of the force sensing unit. (Yoshitani, [0196], “With this configuration, the vibration of the display part 2 is absorbed by the portions of the shock absorbers 6. As a result, it is possible to suppress the vibration that will act on the sensor 7 as the component susceptible to the vibration in the display device 1.”)
It therefore would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide an elastic element that fits within the surrounding connecting bar as this was a known technique in view of Yoshitani and would have been utilized for the art recognized purpose of the vibration of the display part due to the displacement thereof in the thickness direction is damped by the shock absorbers. (Yoshitani, [0194-0196])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 4-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coni et al. United States Patent No. 5,801,682 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakamura et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0212579 A1 hereinafter Nakamura.
Consider Claim 4:
Coni teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, however does not specify wherein the elastic element comprises a first portion and a second portion, and a first extension direction of the first portion is different from a second extension direction of the second portion.
Nakamura however teaches that it was a known technique in the art to provide an elastic element comprised of different pieces. Nakamura therefore teaches wherein the elastic element comprises a first portion and a second portion, and a first extension direction of the first portion is different from a second extension direction of the second portion. (Nakamura, [0046-0052], [0046], “FIG. 5 is an enlarged view of a portion A1 indicated in FIG. 2. As indicated in FIG. 5, the first connecting member 9 includes a first base 91 (base), an intermediate base member 92, a first adhesive 93, and a second adhesive 94. The first connecting member 9 is arranged so as to be separated from an end surface 4a of the protecting member 4.”)
It therefore would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide an elastic element comprised of different pieces as this was a known technique in view of Nakamura and would have been recognized by a person of skill in the art to improve workability in manufacturing. (Nakamura, [0051])
Consider Claim 5:
Coni in view Nakamura discloses the electronic device according to claim 4, wherein the elastic element further comprises a third portion, a third extension direction of the third portion is the same as the second extension direction of the second portion, and the first portion is connected to the second portion and the third portion. (Nakamura, [0040-0056])
The Office notes that it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In this case, the disclosed elements are utilized for the intended purpose of to reduce the possibility that vibration of the touch panel is transmitted to the frame. (Nakamura, [0055])
Consider Claim 6:
Coni in view Nakamura discloses the electronic device according to claim 5, wherein an elastic modulus of the first portion is the same as an elastic modulus of the second portion and is greater than an elastic modulus of the third portion. (Nakamura, [0040-0056])
The Office notes that it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In this case, the disclosed elements are utilized for the intended purpose of to reduce the possibility that vibration of the touch panel is transmitted to the frame. (Nakamura, [0055])
Consider Claim 7:
Coni in view Nakamura discloses the electronic device according to claim 5, wherein a first thickness of the first portion is less than or equal to a second thickness of the second portion, and a third thickness of the third portion is greater than or equal to 0 and less than the first thickness of the first portion. (Nakamura, [0040-0056])
The Office notes that it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In this case, the disclosed elements are utilized for the intended purpose of to reduce the possibility that vibration of the touch panel is transmitted to the frame. (Nakamura, [0055])
Consider Claim 8:
Coni in view Nakamura discloses the electronic device according to claim 4, wherein a cross-sectional shape of the first portion comprises a polygon, a circle, an ellipse, a polygon with a chamfer, or a combination thereof. (Nakamura, [0040-0056])
The Office notes that it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In this case, the disclosed elements are utilized for the intended purpose of to reduce the possibility that vibration of the touch panel is transmitted to the frame. (Nakamura, [0055])
Consider Claim 9:
Coni in view Nakamura discloses the electronic device according to claim 4, wherein the first extension direction is parallel to a normal direction of the display unit, and the second extension direction is perpendicular to the normal direction of the display unit. (Nakamura, [0040-0056])
The Office notes that it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In this case, the disclosed elements are utilized for the intended purpose of to reduce the possibility that vibration of the touch panel is transmitted to the frame. (Nakamura, [0055])
Consider Claim 10:
Coni in view Nakamura discloses the electronic device according to claim 4, wherein a material of the first portion is the same as a material of the second portion. (Nakamura, [0040-0056], [0047], “The first base 91 has a role of supporting the intermediate base member 92, the first adhesive 93, and the second adhesive 94. In the present embodiment, the first base 91 has elasticity. Therefore, the first base 91 is formed with, for example, an elastic material of a rubber family or a foam resin family. As an elastic material of a rubber family, for example, a polybutadiene family, a nitrile family, a chloroprene family, and a cis-polyisoprene family can be considered. As an elastic material of a foam resin family, for example, polyurethane, polystyrene, polyolefin, and polypropylene can be considered. Moreover, in the present embodiment, the thickness of the first base 91 is set to 0.03 mm to 0.1 mm.”)
Consider Claim 11:
Coni in view Nakamura discloses the electronic device according to claim 4, wherein the first portion comprises two materials, and a material of the second portion is the same as one of the two materials of the first portion. (Nakamura, [0040-0056], [0047], “The first base 91 has a role of supporting the intermediate base member 92, the first adhesive 93, and the second adhesive 94. In the present embodiment, the first base 91 has elasticity. Therefore, the first base 91 is formed with, for example, an elastic material of a rubber family or a foam resin family. As an elastic material of a rubber family, for example, a polybutadiene family, a nitrile family, a chloroprene family, and a cis-polyisoprene family can be considered. As an elastic material of a foam resin family, for example, polyurethane, polystyrene, polyolefin, and polypropylene can be considered. Moreover, in the present embodiment, the thickness of the first base 91 is set to 0.03 mm to 0.1 mm.”)
Consider Claim 12:
Coni in view Nakamura discloses the electronic device according to claim 4, wherein the first portion of the elastic element comprises a first material part, a second material part, and a third material part, wherein the second material part is located between the first material part and the third material part, the first material part is located between the second fixing element and the second material part, and the third material part is located between the second material part and the connecting rod. (Nakamura, [0040-0056], [0047], “The first base 91 has a role of supporting the intermediate base member 92, the first adhesive 93, and the second adhesive 94. In the present embodiment, the first base 91 has elasticity. Therefore, the first base 91 is formed with, for example, an elastic material of a rubber family or a foam resin family. As an elastic material of a rubber family, for example, a polybutadiene family, a nitrile family, a chloroprene family, and a cis-polyisoprene family can be considered. As an elastic material of a foam resin family, for example, polyurethane, polystyrene, polyolefin, and polypropylene can be considered. Moreover, in the present embodiment, the thickness of the first base 91 is set to 0.03 mm to 0.1 mm.”)
Consider Claim 13:
Coni in view Nakamura discloses the electronic device according to claim 4, wherein the second portion of the elastic element comprises a first material part and a second material part, and the first material part is located between the connecting rod and the second material part. (Nakamura, [0040-0056], [0047], “The first base 91 has a role of supporting the intermediate base member 92, the first adhesive 93, and the second adhesive 94. In the present embodiment, the first base 91 has elasticity. Therefore, the first base 91 is formed with, for example, an elastic material of a rubber family or a foam resin family. As an elastic material of a rubber family, for example, a polybutadiene family, a nitrile family, a chloroprene family, and a cis-polyisoprene family can be considered. As an elastic material of a foam resin family, for example, polyurethane, polystyrene, polyolefin, and polypropylene can be considered. Moreover, in the present embodiment, the thickness of the first base 91 is set to 0.03 mm to 0.1 mm.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coni et al. United States Patent No. 5,801,682 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ono et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0188121 A1 hereinafter Ono.
Consider Claim 15:
Coni discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, however does not specify wherein the elastic element comprises at least one hollow part.
Ono however teaches that it was a known technique to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide wherein the elastic element comprises at least one hollow part. (Ono, [0121], “FIG. 12 is a plan view showing an example of such an anisotropic elastic modulus material. This anisotropic elastic modulus material 50A has a ladder structure. Specifically, as shown at the top of FIG. 12, the anisotropic elastic modulus material 50A includes a plurality of holes 52. The plurality of holes 52 are long in the y-direction and arrayed in the x-direction as viewed in the x-y plane, for example. Note that, although it is favorable that the holes 52 pass through the anisotropic elastic modulus material 50A in a z-direction, it is not essential that they pass therethrough.”)
It therefore would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide hollow portions within the elastic element as this was a known technique in view of Ono and would have been utilized for the art recognized purpose of the elastic modulus material is easily elastically deformed in the x-direction while it is hardly elastically deformed in the y-direction. (Ono, [0122])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coni et al. United States Patent No. 5,801,682.
Consider Claim 2:
Coni teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the display unit has a display region and a peripheral region surrounding the display region, the force sensing unit is located in the display region, and in a direction perpendicular to a normal direction of the display unit. (Coni, Column 3-4, “(6) The supporting strips 1A to 1D are made of an electrically conductive flexible material. They provide for the attachment of the plate 1 to a support 15 to which a display device 16 is fixed, the plate 1 being fixed above this device 16, the images of which are seen through the plate 1. The support 15 is advantageously a printed circuit comprising the electronic circuits to which the conductive layer 11 is connected through the capacitor 3. In the present case, the support 15 comprises an aperture 17 through which there passes the upper part of the display device 16. It is clear that if the display device 16 is thin, it is not possible to make the aperture 17 and fix the display device 16 to the upper face of the support 15 and, therefore the fastening device of the plate 1 is then modified accordingly to raise it sufficiently above the display unit 16.”)
Coni however does not specify a distance between the force sensing unit and the peripheral region is greater than or equal to 0 and is less than or equal to 50 millimeters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a distance between the force sensing unit and the peripheral region is greater than or equal to 0 and is less than or equal to 50 , since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coni et al. United States Patent No. 5,801,682 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahashi et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0067284 A1 hereinafter Takahashi.
Consider Claim 19:
Coni discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, however does not disclose further comprising: a vibration actuator, disposed on a surface of the display unit facing the base.
Takahashi however teaches it was a known technique to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide a device further comprising: a vibration actuator, disposed on a surface of the display unit facing the base. (Takahashi, [0040] Vibration actuator 10 according to Embodiment 1 is mounted on touch panel (operation contact surface part) 140 (see FIG. 17) that displays images, for example. In this case, vibration actuator 10 is a configuration applied to touch panel apparatus 100 that is capable of allowing the user who touches touch panel 140 to perform intuitive operations by transmitting vibration in response to touch operations on the screen to the user to feel bodily sensations. Note that touch panel 140 of touch panel apparatus 100 includes a contact position output part that receives a touch operation of the user on touch panel 140 and outputs the contact position thereof.
It therefore would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a vibration actuator as taught in view of Takahashi and would have been readily recognized by a person of skill in the art to be used for the purpose of allowing the user who touches touch panel to perform intuitive operations by transmitting vibration in response to touch operations on the screen to the user to feel bodily sensations. (Takahashi, [0040])
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon which is still considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is cited in a current or previous PTO-892. The prior art cited in a current or previous PTO-892 reads upon the applicants claims in part, in whole and/or gives a general reference to the knowledge and skill of persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Applicant, when responding to this Office action, should consider not only the cited references applied in the rejection but also any additional references made of record.
In the response to this office action, the Examiner respectfully requests support be shown for any new or amended claims. More precisely, indicate support for any newly added language or amendments by specifying page, line numbers, and/or figure(s). This will assist The Office in compact prosecution of this application. The Office has cited particular columns, paragraphs, and/or line numbers in the applied rejection of the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within each claim, however other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing a response, should fully consider the cited reference(s) in its entirety and not only the cited portions as other sections of the reference may expand on the teachings of the cited portion(s).
Applicant Representatives are reminded of CFR 1.4(d)(2)(ii) which states “A patent practitioner (§ 1.32(a)(1) ), signing pursuant to §§ 1.33(b)(1) or 1.33(b)(2), must supply his/her registration number either as part of the S-signature, or immediately below or adjacent to the S-signature. The number (#) character may be used only as part of the S-signature when appearing before a practitioner’s registration number; otherwise the number character may not be used in an S-signature.” When an unsigned or improperly signed amendment is received the amendment will be listed in the contents of the application file, but not entered. The examiner will notify applicant of the status of the application, advising him or her to furnish a duplicate amendment properly signed or to ratify the amendment already filed. In an application not under final rejection, applicant should be given a two month time period in which to ratify the previously filed amendment (37 CFR 1.135(c) ).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J JANSEN II whose telephone number is (571)272-5604. The examiner can normally be reached Normally Available Monday-Friday 9am-4pm EST.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached on 571-272-3017. 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.
/Michael J Jansen II/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights