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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/25/2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have not introduced new matter and are supported in the specification in at least [00148] of the instant specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant summarizes [00148] in the instant specification that describes catalysts comprising both a CeO2 content of 40 wt% and SrO (i.e. strontia) that display negative effects in catalyst function when compared to identical catalysts free of SrO. Applicant argues that despite Deeba teaching a first layer comprising Pd/OSC with 40 wt.% CeO2 content, Deeba does not identify or teach the negative effect of strontium when it is placed together with Pd/OSC with high CeO2 content.
However, in response to applicant's argument that the instant invention identified the negative effect of having a catalyst with both a high ceria content and strontia present, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). As previously stated, Deeba teaches an example where a first layer is prepared comprising palladium, stabilized alumina, and barium oxide as the promoter prior to depositing a second layer comprising palladium on high surface area lanthana-alumina, rhodium supported on high surface area lanthana-zirconia and ceria-zirconia composite, and barium oxide as promoter ([0011]-[0012]; Fig. 5). Deeba clearly shows an example in Fig. 5 that does not have strontium present (Fig. 5). Additionally, Deeba teaches examples where the first layer comprises an oxygen storage component of ceria-zirconia that contains 40 weight% of CeO2 (i.e. ceria) while teaching a general range of ceria in the ceria-zirconia component of about 25-50% by weight based on the total weight of the first ceria-zirconia composite (Pg. 15, lines 5-14; Pg. 19, lines 1-7; Pg. 25, Claim 14). At least Example 1 in Deeba (Pg. 15, lines 5-14) also lacks strontium, providing a clear explicit teaching of a catalyst lacking strontium while also containing 40 weight% of ceria in the ceria-zirconia oxygen storage component.
As Deeba does not include strontium in the examples and furthermore does not show its presence in the figures (Fig. 1, 3 and 5 for example), Deeba meets the limitation “wherein the first layer is essentially free of strontium,” by teaching effectively 0% strontium being added.
Applicant argues Chang does not teach of suggest the first layer should be essentially free of strontium when using high CeO2 content.
However, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Chang is not relied on to teach the catalyst lacking strontium, but rather Deeba is.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deeba et al. (WO2016210221A1) in view Chang et al. (US20160228818A1).
It is noted that when utilizing Deeba et al. (WO2016210221A1), the disclosures of the reference are based on Deeba et al. (US20180178198A1) which is an English language equivalent of the reference. Therefore, the column and line numbers cited with respect to Deeba et al. (WO2016210221A1) are found in Deeba et al. (US20180178198A1).
Regarding claim 1, Deeba teaches a two-metal layered catalyst on a carrier, where the catalyst is effective for carrying out three-way conversion (TWC) of exhaust streams of combustion engines ([0001], [0007]). Deeba teaches the first layer may comprise 40-95% by weight of the total palladium content of the composite (i.e. first and second layer palladium total) which is supported on both a first refractory oxide component comprising a stabilized alumina, present at about 20-80% weight percent of the first layer, and an oxygen storage component comprising ceria-zirconia composite in an amount of about 20-80% weight percent of the first layer, where the stabilizer is selected from lanthana, baria, zirconia, and strontium in an amount of up to about 10% ([0008]-[0009]). Deeba teaches the second layer comprises a rhodium component in about 20% by weight that is supported on a refractory metal oxide component comprising zirconia-based supports selected from zirconia, lanthana-zirconia, titania-zirconia, titania-lanthana- zirconia, and combinations thereof present in an amount of about 50-80%, which further comprises at least one promoter or stabilizer selected from lanthana, baria, zirconia, and strontium in an amount of up to about 10% ([0009]-[0010]). Deeba teaches the second layer may additionally comprise about 5-60% by weight of the total palladium content of the composite, with a palladium to rhodium weight ratio in the range of about 0.1:1 to 20:1 ([0008]). Deeba teaches an example where a first layer is prepared comprising palladium, stabilized alumina, and barium oxide as the promoter prior to depositing a second layer comprising palladium on high surface area lanthana-alumina, rhodium supported on high surface area lanthana-zirconia and ceria-zirconia composite, and barium oxide as promoter ([0011]-[0012]; Fig. 5). Deeba clearly shows an example in Fig. 5 that does not have strontium present (Fig. 5), depicted below:
PNG
media_image1.png
249
623
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As Deeba does not include strontium in the examples and furthermore does not show its presence in the figures (Fig. 1, 3 and 5 for example), Deeba meets the limitation “wherein the first layer is essentially free of strontium,” by teaching effectively 0% strontium being added.
Deeba teaches the first layer comprises about 40-95% by weight of the total palladium content of the composite and the second layer comprises about 5-60% by weight of the total palladium content of the composite, while further teaching the catalyst comprises oxygen storage components ([0008]; Claim 4). Deeba further teaches exemplary examples in [0051]-[0059], wherein Example 11, the Pd in the inlet zone is about 40-80% of the total Pd available in the bottom layer and the Pd in the outlet zone is about 20-60% of the total available in the inlet zone ([0054]-[0055], Fig. 11-12). Deeba further teaches in example 11 that a first layer was prepared by separately impregnating Pd on stabilized alumina (called a first support) and impregnating Pd onto an oxygen storage component (called a second support). Deeba teaches the amount of Pd present in the first support was 58 g/ft3 Pd and the amount of Pd present in the second support was 28 g/ft3. Deeba teaches that a separate second layer was then added to this layer as a top coat which contains Rh and Pd ([0118]-[0119]). Deeba therefore teaches a total amount of Pd in the first layer of 86 g/ft3 (58 + 28), where 67% of the Pd present in the first layer is supported on the alumina and 33% of the Pd present in the first layer is supported on the oxygen storage component. Therefore, the range taught in Deeba makes obvious the claimed range.
Deeba further teaches examples where the first layer comprises an oxygen storage component of ceria-zirconia that contains 40 weight% of CeO2 (i.e. ceria) while teaching a general range of ceria in the ceria-zirconia component of about 25-50% by weight based on the total weight of the first ceria-zirconia composite (Pg. 15, lines 5-14; Pg. 19, lines 1-7; Pg. 25, Claim 14). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Deeba (25-50 wt% ceria in the ceria-zirconia oxygen storage component) overlaps with the claimed range (ceria is about 40 wt%). Therefore, the range in Deeba renders obvious the claimed range.
Deeba further teaches the second layer can include a promoter or stabilizer, which includes lanthana, baria, zirconia, and strontium ([0008]; [0010]).
The claim further requires “wherein the zirconia component comprises ceria-zirconia, and the amount of ceria is in the ranges from 0 wt. % to 9 wt. % based on the total weight of the zirconia component.” Deeba teaches the ceria-zirconia composite comprises ceria in an amount of about 10-50% by weight of the second ceria-zirconia composite ([0010]).
Chang teaches a three-way catalyst comprising a palladium component comprising palladium and a ceria-zirconia alumina mixed or composite oxide; and a rhodium component comprising rhodium and a zirconia-containing material, where the palladium and rhodium components are coated on a substrate ([0008]). Chang teaches the rhodium component can comprise ceria-zirconia-alumina composite, where the CeO2:ZrO2:Al2O3 weight ratio ranges from 0.1-70:0.1-70:95-10 ([0013]). The lowest end of the range taught by Chang is a ceria weight relative to zirconia of at least 0.14% ([0013]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Chang (at least 0.14 wt.% ceria relative to zirconia) overlaps with the claimed range (ceria ranges from 0 wt. % to 9 wt. % based on the total weight of the zirconia component). Therefore, the range in Chang renders obvious the claimed range.
Calculations:CeO2:ZrO2:Al2O3 = 0.1:69.9:30 ; CeO2:ZrO2 = 0.1 : 69.9; CeO2/ZrO2 wt.% = 0.1 /69.9 = 0.14% ceria based on the total weight of zirconia.
Advantageously, when the carrier has a CeO2/ZrO2 ratio within the taught range, enhanced cleaning of exhaust gas, particularly under cold-start conditions, can be attained ([0007]-[0008]; .
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to assemble a layer that includes at least 0.14% ceria relative to the total weight percent of zirconia in the oxygen storage component in the product of Deeba in order to provide enhanced exhaust gas cleaning, particularly under cold start conditions, as taught by Chang.
Regarding claim 2, Deeba in view of Chang teaches the product of claim 1 and Deeba further teaches the catalyst composite comprises a carrier ([0063]-[0068]), where in one embodiment the first layer is deposited directly on the carrier ([0070]; Claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Deeba in view of Chang teaches the product of claim 1 and Deeba further teaches an example where the alumina component in the first layer is baria-alumina, the oxygen storage component is ceria-zirconia, and the zirconia component is ceria-zirconia ([0011]-[0012]). Deeba further teaches lists of exemplary materials for each component, where the stabilized alumina of the first refractory metal oxide component comprises activated alumina, lanthana-alumina, baria-alumina, ceria-alumina, ceria-lanthana-alumina, zirconia-alumina, ceria-zirconia-alumina, or combinations thereof, and that in the second layer, the second refractory metal oxide component for supporting the rhodium component may comprise an alumina-based support or a zirconia-based support, where the second refractory metal oxide component for supporting the rhodium component comprises an activated alumina compound selected from the group consisting of alumina, zirconia-stabilized alumina, lanthana-alumina, baria-alumina, ceria-alumina, zirconia-alumina, ceria-zirconia-alumina, lanthana-zirconia-alumina, baria-lanthana-alumina, baria-lanthana-neodymia alumina, and combinations thereof ([0008]). Deeba teaches the oxygen storage component typically comprises one or more reducible oxides of one or more rare earth metals, with suitable examples including ceria, praseodymia, or combinations thereof, where delivery of the oxygen storage component into the composite is achieved by employing ceria, a mixed oxide of cerium and zirconium, and/or a mixed oxide of cerium, zirconium, yttrium, lanthanum, or optionally neodymium ([0039]). Deeba further teaches zirconia based supports may be selected from the group consisting of zirconia, lanthana-zirconia, titania-zirconia, titania-lanthana-zirconia, and combinations thereof ([0040]).
Regarding claim 5, Deeba in view of Chang teaches the product of claim 1 and Deeba further teaches the first layer comprises 50-95% of a first refractory oxide, which is a stabilized alumina ([0008]), and a first oxygen storage component in an amount of about 20-80% ([0009]).
Regarding claim 8, Deeba in view of Chang teaches the product of claim 1 and Deeba further teaches the second layer comprises rhodium supported on an alumina-based support or a zirconia-based support ([0008]), where the second layer further comprises an oxygen storage component of ceria-zirconia ([0010]). Deeba teaches an example where the second layer is prepared with Rh fixed onto La-ZrO2-alumina and Rh mixed with La-ZrO2-alumina and ceria-zirconia, followed by calcination, which prepares the second layer comprising both an zirconia-based support (absent ceria) and a ceria-zirconia based support ([0111]-[0112]).
Regarding claim 9, Deeba in view of Chang teaches the product of claim 1 and Deeba further teaches an example where the second layer comprises palladium on high surface area lanthana-alumina, rhodium supported on high surface area lanthana-zirconia and ceria-zirconia composite, and barium oxide as promoter ([0011]-[0012]; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, Deeba in view of Chang teaches the product of claim 1 and 2 and Deeba further teaches the catalyst layers are supported on a carrier (also referred to as a substrate in at least [0063]), which may be a ceramic or metal substrate ([0047]; [0063]-[0068]).
Regarding claim 11, Deeba in view of Chang teaches the product of claim 1 and Deeba further teaches an example where the second layer (outermost layer) comprises two zones, termed an inlet zone and an outlet zone ([0055]; Fig. 12, [0013], [0050], Claim 22). Deeba teaches the inlet zone comprises Rd and, where the Pd support material is selected from the group consisting of stabilized alumina, OSC (i.e. oxygen storage component), La-ZrO2 , Pr-CeO2, and the like, and the Rh support material is selected from the group consisting of alumina, ZrO2-Al2O3 , La-ZrO2, and the like ([0055]). Deeba teaches the outlet zone also comprises Pd and Rh, where the Pd support of the outlet zone of the top layer can be stabilized alumina, OSC, La-ZrO2 , Pr-CeO2 , and the like, and the Rh supports are alumina, ZrO2-Al2O3 , La-ZrO2 , and the like ([0055]). Deeba further teaches the oxide support include materials such as zirconia, titania, alkaline earth metal oxides such as baria, calcia or strontia to stabilize the support against thermal degradation ([0040], [0060], [0062]) and that the second layer comprises one of these stabilizers ([0010]). It would have been obvious to include baria or strontia in the first zone of the embodiment depicted in Fig. 12 in order to provide the material resistance to thermal degradation.
Regarding claim 12, Deeba in view of Chang teaches the product of claim 1 and Deeba further teaches an example where the first layer (middle layer) comprises two zones, termed an inlet zone and an outlet zone ([0054]; Fig. 11, [0013], [0050], Claim 21). Deeba teaches the inlet zone is free of an oxygen storage component and is supported on alumina, while the outlet zone comprises Pd on an oxygen storage component ([0052], [0054]). Deeba teaches the examples of suitable oxygen storage components include ceria, praseodymia, or combinations thereof, where delivery of ceria into the layer can be achieved by the use of, for example, ceria, a mixed oxide of cerium and zirconium, and/or a mixed oxide of cerium, zirconium, yttrium, lanthanum, or optionally neodymium ([0039]). Deeba further teaches the first layer comprises a stabilizer selected from lanthana, baria, zirconia, and strontium ([0009]; Claim 14). It would have been obvious to include baria or strontia in the first zone of the embodiment depicted in Fig. 11 in order to provide the material resistance to thermal degradation.
Regarding claim 13, Deeba in view of Chang teaches the product of claim 1 and Deeba further teaches an exemplary embodiment includes a layer containing Pd supported on an oxygen storage component and/or a refractory metal oxide support, with a Pd/Rh layer thereon ([0059]; Fig. 15 and 16). Deeba teaches that either of these layers may be zoned ([0059]). Deeba further teaches embodiments in Fig. 11 and Fig. 12 where the first layer comprises two zones and the second layer comprises two zones, respectively. Regarding the first layer, Deeba teaches an example where the first layer (middle layer) comprises two zones, termed an inlet zone and an outlet zone ([0054]; Fig. 11, [0013], [0050], Claim 21). Deeba teaches the inlet zone is free of an oxygen storage component and is supported on alumina, while the outlet zone comprises Pd on an oxygen storage component ([0052], [0054]). Deeba teaches the examples of suitable oxygen storage components include ceria, praseodymia, or combinations thereof, where delivery of ceria into the layer can be achieved by the use of, for example, ceria, a mixed oxide of cerium and zirconium, and/or a mixed oxide of cerium, zirconium, yttrium, lanthanum, or optionally neodymium ([0039]). Deeba further teaches the first layer comprises a stabilizer selected from lanthana, baria, zirconia, and strontium ([0009]; Claim 14). Regarding the second layer, Deeba teaches an example where the second layer (outermost layer) comprises two zones, termed an inlet zone and an outlet zone ([0055]; Fig. 12, [0013], [0050], Claim 22). Deeba teaches the inlet zone comprises Rd and, where the Pd support material is selected from the group consisting of stabilized alumina, OSC (i.e. oxygen storage component), La-ZrO2 , Pr-CeO2, and the like, and the Rh support material is selected from the group consisting of alumina, ZrO2-Al2O3 , La-ZrO2, and the like ([0055]). Deeba teaches the outlet zone also comprises Pd and Rh, where the Pd support of the outlet zone of the top layer can be stabilized alumina, OSC, La-ZrO2 , Pr-CeO2 , and the like, and the Rh supports are alumina, ZrO2-Al2O3 , La-ZrO2 , and the like ([0055]). Deeba further teaches the oxide support include materials such as zirconia, titania, alkaline earth metal oxides such as baria, calcia or strontia to stabilize the support against thermal degradation ([0040], [0060], [0062]) and that the second layer comprises one of these stabilizers ([0010]).
Regarding claim 14, Deeba in view of Chang teaches the product of claim 11 and Deeba further teaches an example where the first layer comprises zones and the inlet and outlet zones are deposited on a flow through substrate (Fig. 11; [0054]; [0013], [0050], Claim 21).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deeba et al. (WO2016210221A1) in view Chang et al. (US20160228818A1) and further in view of Hu et al. (US5597771). It is noted that when utilizing Deeba et al. (WO2016210221A1), the disclosures of the reference are based on Deeba et al. (US20180178198A1) which is an English language equivalent of the reference. Therefore, the column and line numbers cited with respect to Deeba et al. (WO2016210221A1) are found in Deeba et al. (US20180178198A1).
Regarding claim 6, Deeba in view of Chang teaches the layered three-way catalyst composition of claim 1 and Deeba further teaches examples where the palladium supported on the alumina component in the first layer ranges from 16-137.58, the palladium supported on the alumina component in the second layer ranges from 2-14.5, and the rhodium supported on the zirconia component in the second layer ranges from 1.6 to 9.9 (Examples 1, 4, 7, 11, 13; [0100]-[0101], [0105]-[0107], [0111]-[0112], [0118]-[0119], [0122]).
The claim further requires “wherein the first layer comprises from 0.01 g/in3-0.4 g/in3 (0.610 kg/m 3 -24.40 kg/m 3) of barium oxide” and “wherein the second layer comprises from 0 g/in3-0.2-g/in3 (0 kg/m 3 -12.20 kg/m 3) of barium oxide or from 0.01 g/in3 -0.2 g/in3 (0.610 kg/m 3 -12.20 kg/m 3) of strontium oxide,” to which Deeba and Chang are silent.
Hu teaches a layered catalyst composite where a first layer comprises a support and at least one palladium component and an oxygen component, and at least one alkaline earth metal components, and the second layer comprises a support, a platinum group metal component, and a second alkaline earth metal (Abstract), where the alkaline earth metal components are selected from barium and strontium (Claims 13-15). Hu further teaches an example where barium oxide is present in the first layer at 0.06 g/in3 and strontium oxide is present in the second layer at 0.1 g/in3 (Example 1, col. 22, line 29-col. 23, line 9), while teaching a general range for the alkaline earth metal oxide in the first layer of from about 0.025 g/in3 to 0.5 g/in3 (col. 19, lines 53-62) and in the second layer of from about 0.025 g/in3 to 0.5 g/in3 (col. 20, line 40-col. 21, line 10). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Hu (alkaline earth metal oxide in the first layer of from about 0.025 g/in3 to 0.5 g/in3; alkaline earth metal oxide in the second layer of from about 0.025 g/in3 to 0.5 g/in3) overlaps with the claimed range (first layer comprises from 0.01 g/in3-0.4 g/in3 (0.610 kg/m 3 -24.40 kg/m 3) of barium oxide; second layer comprises from 0 g/in3-0.2-g/in3 (0 kg/m 3 -12.20 kg/m 3) of barium oxide or from 0.01 g/in3 -0.2 g/in3 (0.610 kg/m 3 -12.20 kg/m 3) of strontium oxide). Therefore, the range in Hu renders obvious the claimed range.
Advantageously, the barium and strontium alkaline earth metal components act as thermal stabilizers to retard undesirable alumina phase transformations while also preventing or reducing the occlusion of the catalytic metal by the alumina component (i.e. alumina enveloping catalytic metal particles are decreasing efficiency) (col. 14, line 52-col. 15, line 29).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include barium oxide in the first layer at 0.06 g/in3 and strontium oxide in the second layer at 0.1 g/in3 in the product of Deeba in order to provide thermal stabilization to the alumina support to retard phase transformations while also preventing or reducing the occlusion of the catalytic metal by the alumina component, as taught by Hu.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan Wayne Taylor whose telephone number is (571)272-9895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5 PM EST; Second Fridays Off.
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, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571)272-6297. 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.
/J.W.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights