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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 6, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The reply filed on October 6, 2025 has been entered into the prosecution for the application. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending. Claim 1 has been amended.
All prior art grounds of rejection are maintained.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this Action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. 2009/0130446 to Schmidt et al. (hereinafter “Schmidt”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. 2019/0219336 to He et al. (hereinafter “He”), with evidence, as to claims 1 and 8, from Liu et al., "Thermal conductivity in hot-pressed silicon carbide," Ceramics International 22(5) [1996]: pp. 407-414 (hereinafter “Liu”), and further with evidence, as to claim 1, from Barea et al., “Thermal conductivity of highly porous mullite material,” Acta Materialia 53(11) [2005]: pp. 3313-3318 (hereinafter “Barea”).
Regarding claim 1, Schmidt teaches a refractory article (see ¶ 0006, teaching a composite article including a refractory phase) comprising a body including a first portion defining at least a portion of a first exterior surface of the body (¶ 0013, teaching protective layer; see also Fig. 1, showing protective layer [12] defining at least a portion of a first exterior surface of the body [10]) and a second portion (see ¶¶ 0013-0014 and Fig. 1, teaching a substrate [14]). Schmidt teaches wherein the first portion (protective layer) comprises a carbide (silicon carbide or hafnium carbide, ¶ 0016). Schmidt teaches wherein the first portion (protective layer) is associated with a hot surface of the refractory article (see ¶¶ 0003, 0005, 0012, teaching that the protective layer protects the article from heat in high temperature environments such as reactors, rockets, etc.; necessarily, then, the protective layer is associated with a “hot surface” of the refractory article, i.e., a surface exposed to heat). Schmidt teaches the second portion (substrate, ¶ 0013) opposite the first exterior surface (see Fig. 1); inherently, the second portion defines at least a portion of a second exterior surface of the body opposite the first exterior surface (i.e., a portion not covered by the protective layer). Since the first exterior surface defined by the first portion (protective layer) is associated with a hot surface of the refractory article, as set forth above, the second exterior surface opposite the first exterior surface necessarily is associated with a cool surface of the refractory article (i.e., is oriented opposite the area where the article is most exposed to a high temperature environment).
Schmidt teaches a second portion (substrate, see ¶¶ 0013-0014), and Schmidt teaches that a variety of materials may be used to make up the second portion (substrate) (see ¶ 0014); however, Schmidt does not explicitly teach wherein the second portion includes a majority content (vol%) of a polycrystalline oxide material, and Schmidt does not explicitly teach a ΔTC of at least 10 W/mK at 300 K, wherein ΔTC=TC1-TC2, TC1 is an average thermal conductivity of the first portion, and TC2 is an average thermal conductivity of the second portion.
He, in a closely related field of endeavor (namely, layered refractories, He, ¶ 0031, Fig. 1), teaches a furnace body (40) that includes a thermal insulating layer (402), wherein the thermal insulating layer is “made of polycrystalline mullite fiber refractories” (¶ 0031), polycrystalline mullite being an example of polycrystalline oxide material. No other component material is listed, indicating that at least in some embodiments polycrystalline mullite fiber refractories make up a majority content (vol%) of thermal insulating layer, indeed all or substantially all of the content of the thermal insulating layer.
One of ordinary skill in the art, given the teaching of He regarding the polycrystalline mullite thermal insulating layer, would have readily been able to modify Schmidt to the extent of using polycrystalline mullite as the substrate material, thereby producing a refractory article in which the second portion includes a majority content (vol%) of a polycrystalline oxide material (namely, polycrystalline mullite). Design incentives, such as a need for a material that is resistant to high temperatures (He, ¶ 0031), suitable for use in high-temperature environments (Schmidt, ¶ 0003), would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the polycrystalline mullite material of He into the composite refractory article of Schmidt. Since the polycrystalline mullite taught by He is suitable for use in high-temperature environments (He, ¶ 0031), one of ordinary skill in the art could have incorporated the polycrystalline mullite material of He into the composite refractory article of Schmidt with predictable results and a high probability of success in producing an acceptable refractory article. See MPEP 2143(I)(F).
Given the materials of the two portions of the refractory article of Schmidt as modified by He, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the ΔTC thermal conductivity difference between the first portion (protective layer) and the second portion (substrate) at 300K would be at least 10 W/(mK) as recited in claim 1 as amended. When looking at the thermal conductivities at 300K of exemplary materials for the first portion and second portion, one of ordinary skill in the art would note that, for example, silicon carbide has a thermal conductivity at 300K of from 70 W/(mK) to just over 90 W/(mK) (depending on density and firing temperature), as evidenced by Liu (see Fig. 4, reproduced below), while mullite (a typical material for the second portion, as taught by He, ¶ 0031) has a thermal conductivity at 300K of from about 1 W/(mK) to about 4.5 W/(mK) (depending on porosity), as evidenced by Barea (see Fig. 1, reproduced below). These ranges evidence a thermal conductivity difference between the first portion and the second portion of much more than 10 W/(mK) at 300K.
Thus, in view of Schmidt modified by He, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the refractory article should inherently have a thermal conductivity difference of at least 10 W/(mK) at 300K between the first exterior surface (protective layer) and the second exterior surface (substrate).
PNG
media_image1.png
411
421
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
306
335
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Left: Fig. 4 from Liu, showing thermal conductivity values for SiC. Right: Fig. 1 from Barea, with thermal conductivity values for mullite. Arrows indicate values at approx. 27°C (300K).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schmidt with the teachings of He to produce a refractory article meeting all of the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Schmidt as modified by He inherently teaches wherein the first portion includes an entirety of the first exterior surface of the body and the second portion includes an entirety of the second exterior surface of the body: Schmidt teaches the protective layer [12] defining a first exterior surface of the body [10] (¶ 0013, Fig. 1); Schmidt teaches the second portion (substrate [14], ¶ 0013) opposite the first exterior surface (see Fig. 1); inherently, the second portion defines a second exterior surface of the body opposite the first exterior surface (i.e., a portion not covered by the protective layer); no other surface component or composition is mentioned.
Regarding claim 3, Schmidt as modified by He teaches wherein the first portion comprises silicon carbide (Schmidt, ¶ 0016).
Regarding claim 4, Schmidt as modified by He teaches wherein the first portion (protective layer) comprises silicon carbonitride or boron silicon carbonitride, both of which include nitrogen (Schmidt, ¶ 0016).
Regarding claim 8, Schmidt as modified by He teaches wherein the first portion (protective layer) comprises silicon carbide (Schmidt, ¶ 0016); silicon carbide has an average thermal conductivity at 300K of from 70 W/(mK) to just over 90 W/(mK) (depending on density and firing temperature), as evidenced by Liu (see above, p. 6); these values lie within the recited range of claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, Schmidt as modified by He teaches wherein the second portion (thermal insulating layer) comprises an aluminosilicate (polycrystalline mullite) (He, ¶ 0031).
Regarding claim 11, Schmidt as modified by He teaches wherein the second portion (thermal insulating layer) comprises mullite (He, ¶ 0031).
Regarding claim 12, Schmidt as modified by He teaches wherein the second portion consists essentially of mullite (He, ¶ 0031, no other components being given).
Regarding claim 13, Schmidt as modified by He teaches wherein the second portion consists essentially of polycrystalline mullite, a polycrystalline oxide material (He, ¶ 0031, no other components being given).
Regarding claim 14, Schmidt as modified by He teaches wherein the second portion consists essentially of polycrystalline mullite, a polycrystalline oxide material (He, ¶ 0031), with no amorphous phase material being mentioned.
Regarding claim 15, Schmidt as modified by He teaches the refractory article further comprising a third portion disposed between the first portion and the second portion (Schmidt, ¶ 0013 and Fig. 1, teaching silicate layer [16] between the protective layer [12] and the substrate [14]). Schmidt as modified by He teaches wherein the third portion comprises an oxide (borosilicate glass, Schmidt, ¶ 0013).
Claim(s) 5-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of He and further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. 2004/0219315 to Bryden (hereinafter “Bryden”).
Regarding claims 5-7, Schmidt modified by He discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. However, Schmidt as modified by He does not explicitly teach wherein the first portion comprises a primary phase including silicon carbide and a secondary phase comprising a nitrogen-containing composition, or wherein the first portion comprises nitride-bonded silicon carbide or oxynitride-bonded silicon carbide, or wherein the first portion consists essentially of nitride-bonded silicon carbide, oxynitride-bonded silicon carbide, or silicon carbide.
Bryden, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a silicon carbide-based ceramic component for use in refractory applications (¶ 0003), the ceramic component including a ceramic body containing silicon carbide and an oxide layer on the ceramic body (¶ 0020). Bryden teaches a second portion (oxide layer) that includes a polycrystalline oxide material (a silica phase comprising crystalline aluminosilicate and, in some cases, crystalline silica) (¶ 0027).
Regarding claim 5, Bryden teaches:
The ceramic body generally contains silicon carbide, the silicon carbide generally forming the principle ceramic component of the ceramic body (greater than 50 wt %). According to the embodiment, the ceramic body is nitride-bonded silicon carbide, which, as described in the background, finds practical use in demanding refractory applications. In the case of nitride-bonded silicon carbide, the silicon nitride is present as a secondary component, and is generally provided within a range of about 5 to about 35 wt %, such as within a narrower range within about 22-29 wt %.
(Bryden, ¶ 0020) (emphasis added). Thus, Bryden teaches wherein the first portion (ceramic body) comprises a primary phase including silicon carbide and a secondary phase comprising a nitrogen-containing composition (silicon nitride).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date could have easily modified the refractory article taught by Schmidt modified by He to include a first portion comprising a primary phase including silicon carbide and a secondary phase including silicon nitride, as taught by Bryden. One would be motivated to do so because silicon carbide including silicon nitride as a secondary phase is more cost effective and has a less complex production process compared to a number of comparable materials, such as pure silicon carbide (Bryden, ¶ 0006). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the teaching of Bryden to modify Schmidt modified by He, producing a refractory article meeting all of the limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Bryden teaches wherein the first portion (ceramic body) comprises nitride-bonded silicon carbide (¶ 0020). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date could have easily modified the refractory article taught by Schmidt modified by He to include a first portion comprising nitride-bonded silicon carbide, as taught by Bryden. One would be motivated to do so by the cost effectiveness and less complex production process of nitride-bonded silicon carbide compared to a number of comparable materials, such as pure silicon carbide (Bryden, ¶ 0006). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the teaching of Bryden to modify Schmidt modified by He, producing a refractory article meeting all of the limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Bryden teaches wherein the first portion (ceramic body) consists essentially of nitride-bonded silicon carbide (¶ 0020), no other components being mentioned (the oxide layer corresponding to the second portion, as noted above). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date could have easily modified the refractory article taught by Schmidt modified by He to include a first portion consisting essentially of nitride-bonded silicon carbide, as taught by Bryden. One would be motivated to do so by the cost effectiveness and less complex production process of nitride-bonded silicon carbide compared to a number of comparable materials, such as pure silicon carbide (Bryden, ¶ 0006). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the teaching of Bryden to modify Schmidt as modified by He, producing a refractory article meeting all of the limitations of claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, Schmidt modified by He discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. However, Schmidt as modified by He does not explicitly teach wherein the second portion comprises silica.
Bryden teaches that the second portion (oxide layer) comprises silica (¶ 0027).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date could have readily modified the refractory article taught by Schmidt modified by He to include silica in the second portion, as taught by Bryden. One would be motivated to do so by a desire to form a glassy or amorphous phase within the second portion that could function as a matrix for holding other components of the second portion, such as crystalline aluminosilicates (Bryden, ¶ 0027). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the teaching of Bryden to modify Schmidt modified by He, thereby producing a refractory article meeting all of the limitations of claim 9.
Claim(s) 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of He as applied to claims 1 and 15 above and further in view of U.S. Pat Pub. 2017/0342844 to Schmidt et al. (hereinafter “Schmidt II”).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Schmidt modified by He teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 15 as set forth above.
However, Schmidt modified by He does not teach that the third portion comprises an oxide and a carbide, or that the third portion comprises at least a phase comprising a material selected from the group of silicon carbide (SiC), silicon nitride (Si3N4), silicon oxynitride (Si2ON2), silica (SiO2), mullite (3Al2O3-2SiO2 or 2Al2O3-SiO2), alumina, (Al2O3), silicon aluminum oxynitride (SiAlON), or any combination thereof.
Schmidt II, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a composite article for use in settings subject to harsh thermal and environmental conditions (¶ 0030), the composite article comprising an intermediate layer situated between a substrate and a protective layer (¶ 0037). Schmidt teaches that the intermediate layer comprises silicon oxycarbide (¶ 0037) and/or silicon dioxide, silicon carbide, carbides, oxides, or combinations thereof (¶ 0038).
One of ordinary skill in the art would readily have been able to take the teaching of a refractory article with a third portion, as taught by Schmidt modified by He, and modify that teaching with the teaching of Schmidt II such that the third portion comprises a combination of silicon dioxide and silicon carbide (Schmidt II, ¶ 0038). The motivation to do so would be to enhance the thermal and oxidative stability of refractory article and to better match thermal expansion of the first portion and the second portion (Schmidt II, ¶ 0041). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schmidt by He and Schmidt II to produce a refractory article meeting all of the limitations of claim 16.
Similarly, one ordinary skill in the art would readily have been able to take the teaching of a refractory article with a third portion, as taught by Schmidt modified by He, and modify that teaching with the teaching of Schmidt II such that the third portion comprises a phase comprising silicon carbide (Schmidt II, ¶ 0038), thus reading on claim 17. The motivation to do so would be to enhance the thermal and oxidative stability of refractory article and to better match thermal expansion of the first portion and the second portion (Schmidt II, ¶ 0041). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schmidt by He and Schmidt II to produce a refractory article meeting all of the limitations of claim 17.
Claim(s) 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of He as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of JP 2015171985 A to Komiyama et al. (with reference to the previously provided machine translation, hereinafter “Komiyama”).
Regarding claim 18 and 19, Schmidt as modified by He teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as described above. However, Schmidt as modified by He does not explicitly recite that the third portion comprises a first phase comprising nitride-bonded silicon carbide or oxynitride-bonded silicon carbide and a second phase comprising mullite.
Komiyama, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a composite refractory material (Abstract) that comprises a porous nitride-bonded silicon carbide refractory material (i.e., the first phase) (¶ 0026) and a second phase comprising mullite, the mullite phase being part of a coating that coats the refractory surface and the inner surfaces of the pores of the porous nitride-bonded silicon carbide refractory material (¶ 0026). Komiyama teaches that the nitride-bonded silicon carbide refractory material of the first phase may include silicon carbide bonded with silicon nitride and/or silicon oxynitride (¶ 0008); that is, the refractory material of the first phase may comprise either nitride-bonded silicon carbide or oxynitride-bonded silicon carbide or both.
One of ordinary skill in the art would readily be able to take the teaching of a refractory article with a third portion, as taught by Schmidt modified by He, and modify that teaching with the teaching of Komiyama to produce a third portion comprising a first phase comprising nitride-bonded silicon carbide (claim 18) or oxynitride-bonded silicon carbide (claim 19) and a second phase comprising mullite (claims 18 and 19). The motivation to do so would be to suppress deterioration of the refractory article due to oxidation, thereby extending the workable life of the refractory article (Komiyama, ¶¶ 0012-0014). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schmidt by He and Komiyama to produce a refractory article meeting all of the limitations of claims 18 and 19.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of He as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,459,112 to Kim (hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claim 20, Schmidt as modified by He teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as set forth above. However, Schmidt as modified by He does not explicitly recite that the third portion comprises a first phase comprising silicon carbide (SiC) and a second phase comprising alumina (Al2O3).
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a reaction-bonded silicon carbide refractory article (Col. 3, line 38) comprising a silicon carbide phase and a bond phase, said silicon carbide phase comprising about 65 wt % to about 85 wt % of the article, and said bond phase comprising at least about 30 wt % of silicon oxynitride and at least about 30 wt % of alumina (claim 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art would readily be able to take the teaching of a refractory article with a third portion, as taught by Schmidt modified by He, and modify that teaching with the teaching of Kim so as to produce a third portion comprising a first phase comprising silicon carbide and a second phase (bond phase) comprising alumina. The motivation to do so would be to improve the abrasion resistance of the refractory article (Kim, Col. 3, lines 38-42). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schmidt by He and Kim to produce a refractory article meeting all of the limitations of claim 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed October 6, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks submitted with the reply filed October 6, 2025 (hereinafter “Remarks”), much of Applicant’s argument focuses on the silence of the Schmidt and He references with regard to thermal conductivity (see generally Remarks at p. 5). Applicant states that “Schmidt does not disclose thermal conductivity of the protective layer or the substrate,” and “in view of Schmidt, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have known or reasonably expected a difference of thermal conductivity between the protective layer and substrate” (Remarks at p. 5). Applicant argues from this that one of ordinary skill in the art “would not have been motivated to select materials…to optimize the article composite to achieve the claimed difference in thermal conductivity” (Remarks at p. 5). However, one of ordinary skill in the art need not have achieving a certain ΔTC as a goal in order to select materials such that a ΔTC above a certain minimum is a result. The rejection of claim 1 in view of Schmidt as modified by He is premised on one of ordinary skill in the art having a motivation to use He to modify Schmidt (namely, the design incentives noted above, see p. 5), thereby producing a refractory article that, as a consequence of material selection, satisfies the ΔTC limitation of claim 1. Applicant points to the fact that He “does not even mention thermal conductivity throughout the reference” (Remarks at p. 5), and Applicant urges that without a teaching of the importance of the claimed minimum thermal conductivity difference, “one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to choose the materials of the ceramic matrix and refractory phase to have the claimed thermal conductivity difference over the substrate” (Remarks at p. 6). Again, to show obviousness, it is not necessary to show motivation to achieve a certain minimum thermal conductivity difference. For claim 1 to be obvious over the cited prior art, it is not necessary for one of ordinary skill in the art to be intending to optimize for a certain thermal conductivity difference; it is enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Schmidt in view of He, for any reason, in order to produce a composite article that reads on the pending claims. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composite article of Schmidt by including the polycrystalline mullite taught by He, for the reasons set forth above (see pp. 4-5). The thermal conductivity of each of those disclosed materials is an inherent physical property of the material itself. That composite article would inherently and necessarily possess at least the minimum thermal conductivity difference as a consequence of the nature of the materials chosen. Thermal conductivity difference is not a goal or objective of the selection of materials but a result of decisions made for other reasons.
Applicant argues that “the insulating layer of He is more resistant to oxidation than a silicon carbide body and thus, even if one of ordinary skill in the art had been motivated to modify Schmidt per He, the insulating layer of He would have been applied as a protection layer over the protective layer including the non-oxide matrix of Schmidt” (Remarks at p. 6). This argument is unavailing because, when a primary reference is modified by the teachings of a secondary reference, it is often the case that multiple modifications or combinations are possible. The fact that one of ordinary skill in the art could modify Schmidt with He in one way (i.e., adding the insulating layer of He as a protection layer over the matrix of Schmidt) does not mean that one of ordinary skill in the art could not alternatively modify Schmidt with He in another way (i.e., using the material suggested by He in the substrate taught by Schmidt). A prior art reference is good for all that it teaches (MPEP 2121.01). Even if a different combination or modification might be suggested by the Schmidt and He references, or by the Bryden reference, “preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments” (MPEP 2123).
Applicant’s remaining arguments, and in particular arguments directed toward the rejections of dependent claims, are unpersuasive for reasons set forth above in the rejection of those claims under Section 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Pat. Pub. 2013/0276680 to Piret et al. (“Piret”) teaches a hearth for a metallurgical furnace, in particular for a blast furnace, the hearth including a wall lining and a bottom lining of refractory material for containing a molten metal bath, the bottom lining including a lower region and an upper region that is arranged to cover the top of the lower region and that is built of ceramic elements, the ceramic elements of the upper region being made of microporous ceramic material including a granular phase made of a silico-aluminous high alumina content granular material and a binding phase for binding grains of said granular material (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL A. FORSYTH whose telephone number is (703) 756-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th 8:00 - 5:30 EDT and F 8:00 - 12:00 EDT.
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, AMBER R. ORLANDO can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
/P.A.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/JENNIFER A SMITH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731