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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on May 8, 2025, July 10, 2025, October 1, 2025, and December 22, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 38 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. Claim 38 recites the limitations “the second length” and “the third length”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in claims 38, because it depends upon claim 18, but these features are defined in claim 27.
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.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 18-21, 30-32 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ralf Bohle (DE-202012007834U1; machine translation relied upon) in view of Shimizu (US Pub. No. 2015/0298510).
PNG
media_image1.png
1700
2200
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 18-19 and 39, Ralf Bohle teaches a bicycle tire comprising a pair of bead cores 14, a carcass 18 turned around the bead cores and a tread 12 radially outer to the carcass, and an apex 16 (taken to be the claimed elastomeric material filler) made of elastic material is provided at each bead core (machine translation at page 3; figure 1), where the height of the apex is about halfway between the bead core and the beginning of the tread (machine translation at page 3), where it extends from an angle in a range of +/- 60 to 120 degrees, in particular 115 degrees (machine translation at page 2; figure 1), with a specific embodiment being about 40% (measured at about 39.8% - 51 mm/128 mm) (figure 1; annotated figure 1 above), falling within the claimed ranges of relationship between first length H1 and distance H4, as well as teaching a specific embodiment having an apex with a length of 20 to 25 mm and a thickness of about 1 to 2 mm (machine translation at page 4), and given a bead filler thickness of 1-2 mm, the claims are satisfied when a purely radial extent of the bead filler is between 6 mm (1/0.15) and 80 mm (2/.025). These values appear to be consistent with a bead filler having an actual length between 20 mm and 25 mm. Ralf Bohle does not specifically disclose the load at break of the elastomeric filler material. Shimizu teaches using a breaking strength (claimed load at break) of preferably 15 to 25 MPa for a bead filler (paragraph [0040]), overlapping the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a breaking strength as taught by Shimizu for the elastomeric filler material of the tire of Ralf Bohle as a known preferable breaking strength for an elastomeric filler (see Shimizu at paragraph [0040]). Regarding claim 39, given the teachings above about the apex extending from an angle in a range of +/- 60 to 120 degrees, in particular 115 degrees and a specific embodiment having an apex with a length of 20 to 25 mm, viewing figure 1 indicates that most of the angular range of the apex is below 115 degrees, which results in an increased length of apex, where viewing the 60 degree position, such would have an apex length of about double the disclosed specific embodiment, and as such have an extension length of about 40 to 50 mm, thus a range of apex length of 20 mm to about 50 mm overlaps the claimed range of claim 39.
Regarding claim 20, the elastomeric material filler extends from a radially outer surface of the bead core (machine translation at page 3; figure 1).
Regarding claim 21, Ralf Bohle does not specifically disclose the height of the apex in millimeters, however, given conventional bicycle tire sizes, and the percentages disclosed for the height of the apex set out above, it would have been obvious to create embodiments of Ralf Bohle having an apex height greater than or equal to about 10 millimeters.
Regarding claim 30, the elastomeric material filler is disclosed and depicted as being one piece (taken to meet the limitation of being a monolithic insert) (machine translation at pages 3-4; figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 31, Ralf Bohle teaches that the carcass includes two fabric layers 18, 20 (machine translation at page 3), and that the carcass layers can have mutually parallel threads (machine translation at page 2).
Regarding claim 32, Ralf Bohle teaches that the carcass ply is turned around the bead cores to produce at least two superimposed layers of carcass ply, the elastomeric material insert interposed between the two superimposed carcass plies (figure 1).
Claims 18-22, 28 and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lutz (US Pub. No. 2019/0366771) in view of Shimizu (US Pub. No. 2015/0298510).
PNG
media_image2.png
1700
2200
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 18-19, Lutz teaches a bicycle tire comprising a pair of bead cores 24, a carcass 30, 40 turned around the bead cores and a tread 50 radially outer to the carcass, and sidewall reinforcements 52 (taken to be the claimed elastomeric material filler) made of rubber strips is provided at each bead core (paragraphs [0010]-[0016]; figure 3), where the height of the sidewall reinforcements has a specific embodiment being about 75% (measured at about 71.2% - 89 mm/125 mm) (figure 3; annotated figure 3 above), falling within the claimed ranges, as well as having measured length of an enlarged figure 3 of a filler thickness of about 6 mm and a first length H1 of about 180 mm, resulting in a ratio of thickness to first length of about 3.3%, falling within the claimed range. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). Lutz does not specifically disclose the load at break of the elastomeric filler material. Shimizu teaches using a breaking strength (claimed load at break) of preferably 15 to 25 MPa for a bead filler (paragraph [0040]), overlapping the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a breaking strength as taught by Shimizu for the elastomeric filler material of the tire of Lutz as a known preferable breaking strength for an elastomeric filler (see Shimizu at paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 20, the elastomeric material filler extends from a radially outer surface of the bead core (figure 3).
Regarding claim 21, such a high height for the sidewall reinforcements, along with the sizes of a bicycle tire, would result in first length greater than 10 mm.
Regarding claim 22, the elastomeric material filler has a thickness adjacent to the bead core less than the thickness of the bead core (figure 3).
Regarding claim 28, the sidewall reinforcements have a constant thickness throughout their extension (paragraph [0016]; figure 3).
Regarding claim 30, the sidewall reinforcements are monolithic inserts (paragraph [0016]; figure 3).
Regarding claim 31, Lutz teaches that the carcass comprises carcass plies 30 and 40 with cords oriented at 45 degrees and -45 degrees, respectively (paragraphs [0012]-[0013]).
Regarding claim 32, Lutz teaches that the carcass ply is turned around the bead cores to produce at least two superimposed layers of carcass ply, the elastomeric material insert interposed between the two superimposed carcass plies (figure 3).
Claims 18-22, 24 and 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizata (JP10-305714; machine translation attached and relied upon) in view of Shimizu (US Pub. No. 2015/0298510) and Jeon (KR2018-0099562).
Regarding claims 18-19 and 21, Mizata teaches a bicycle tire comprising a pair of bead cores 81, a carcass 2 turned around the bead cores and a tread 3 radially outer to the carcass (paragraphs [0008]-[0009]; figure 1), and a foam body 4 (taken to be the claimed elastomeric material filler) which can be made of rubber is provided at each bead core (paragraphs [0010]-[0011]; figure 1), where the height of the foam 4 can be in the range of 5 to 25 mm (paragraph [0012]), with a specific embodiment having a foam rubber height of 12 mm and a tire size of 26 x 2.1, such a tire having a section width and a section height of 53.34 mm (2.1 inches) (see ISO 5775-1), such a height being slightly greater than the claimed distance H4 (paragraph 0013]; figure 3), resulting in a ratio of 22.5% (12/53.34), falling within the claimed ranges of relationship between claimed first length and distance H4, as well as teaching that the average thickness can be in the range of 1 to 5 mm (paragraph [0012]) with specific embodiments having thickness of 1, 2 and 3 mm (paragraph [0013]), thus teaching a range of thickness to first length of 4% (1/25) to 100% (5/5), overlapping the claimed range, and a specific embodiment with a value of 8.3% (1/12) which falls within the claimed range. Mizata does not specifically disclose the load at break of the elastomeric filler material. Shimizu teaches using a breaking strength (claimed load at break) of preferably 15 to 25 MPa for a bead filler (paragraph [0040]), overlapping the claimed range. Further, Jeon teaches using a foam as a cushioning material, with a tensile strength of 23-28 or 25-28 MPa (machine translation at page 6), with specific embodiments having tensile strength of 28 and 25 MPa (machine translation at pages 8-9, examples 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a breaking strength as taught by Shimizu, such being a known breaking strength for a foam as taught by Jeon, for the elastomeric filler material of the tire of Lutz as a known preferable breaking strength for an elastomeric filler (see Shimizu at paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 20, the elastomeric material filler extends from a radially outer surface of the bead core (paragraph [0010]; figure 1).
Regarding claim 22, the elastomeric material filler has a thickness adjacent to the bead core equal to the thickness of the bead core (figure 3).
Regarding claim 24, Jeon teaches specific embodiments having an elongation at break of 420% and 50 % (machine translation at pages 8-9, examples 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an elongation at break as taught by Jeon, for the elastomeric filler material of the tire of Lutz as a known elongation at break for a high tensile strength foam with the predictable result of being an appropriate elongation at break for a foam bead filler. It is also specifically noted that foams typically have a high elongation at break due to the nature of foam.
Regarding claim 29, the elastomeric material filler has a thickness of 1 to 5 mm (paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 30, the elastomeric material filler is disclosed and depicted as being one piece (taken to meet the limitation of being a monolithic insert) (paragraphs [0010]-[0012]; figure 1).
Regarding claim 31, Mizata teaches that the carcass 2 includes a cord layer 21 (paragraph [0009]) and official notice is taken that using a carcass with a plurality of reinforcing cords inclined with the equator at a first angle is extremely well known and conventional. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art a plurality of reinforcing cords inclined of a first angle with respect to an equatorial plane in order to configure the carcass in a well-known and conventional manner to ensure the tire keeps its overall shape.
Regarding claim 32, Mizata teaches that the carcass ply is turned around the bead cores to produce at least two superimposed layers of carcass ply, the elastomeric material insert interposed between the two superimposed carcass plies (figure 3).
Regarding claim 33, Mizata teaches two layers of carcass ply on the opposite left and right bead and sidewall regions, and three layers of carcass ply in the crown region between the two bead regions, and the elastomeric material is placed in the bead and sidewall regions (figure 3).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ralf Bohle in view of Shimizu or Lutz in view of Shimizu as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Toscano (CN 105745067; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 24, Ralf Bohle and Lutz do not specifically disclose the elongation at break of the elastomeric filler material. Toscano teaches using an elongation at break of preferably between 130% and 450% for a bead filler (machine translation at page 4), overlapping the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an elongation at break as taught by Toscano for the elastomeric filler material of the tire of Ralf Bohle or Lutz as a known preferable elongation at break for an elastomeric filler (see Toscano machine translation at page 4).
Claims 25-26 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ralf Bohle in view of Shimizu or Lutz in view of Shimizu as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Shinzawa (US Pub. No. 2012/0103494).
Regarding claims 25-26 and 40, Ralf Bohle and Lutz do not specifically disclose the dynamic elastic modulus of the elastomeric filler material. Shinzawa teaches using a dynamic elastic modulus of preferably 5 to 20 MPa for a bead filler measured at 60 degrees C (paragraph [0028]), and at 20 Hz (paragraph [0029]). These conditions are quite similar to the claimed 70 degrees C and 10 Hz conditions disclosed by claim 26, and even though modulus would be slightly lower at 70 degrees C than 60 degrees C, this material is taken to have dynamic elastic modulus at 70 degrees C overlapping the claimed range of claim 26. Further, the modulus would be even greater at 23 degrees C, and therefore the limitation of claim 25 is taken to be met. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a dynamic elastic modulus as taught by Shinzawa for the elastomeric filler material of the tire of Ralf Bohle or Lutz as a known preferable dynamic elastic modulus for an elastomeric filler (see Shinzawa at paragraphs [0028]-[0029]). Regarding claim 40, while it is noted that the modulus at 23 degrees C is greater than at 60 degrees C, the lower end point of 5 MPa and lower end of the range is expected to have a modulus at 23 degrees C of less than 10 MPa, and thus overlap the range of claim 40. It is noted that Applicant’s specific E* values are 3.3 at 23 degrees C and 2.7 at 70 degrees C, or a ratio of 1.22. Applying the same ratio to the 5 MPa value (which is a greater range, because the 5 MPa is a measurement at 60 degrees C not 70 degrees C) results in a result of 6.1 MPa, substantially within the claimed range. While it is noted that different rubber compositions have different E* relationships with temperature, both of these are elastomeric bead filler rubber, and thus having the same purpose, these compositions are expected to have a similar relationship of E* with respect to temperature.
Claims 27 and 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ralf Bohle in view of Shimizu or Lutz in view of Shimizu as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Galante (US Pat. No. 4,941,523).
Regarding claim 27, Ralf Bohle and Lutz do not specifically disclose using a loop between the carcass and the elastomeric filler. Galante teaches using a flipper (claimed loop) as an optional feature wrapped around the bead core and apex, and between these features and the carcass (column 4, lines 10-21; figures 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a flipper as taught by Galante in the tire of Ralf Bohle (combined) or Lutz (combined) in order to provide rigidity to the lower bead and sidewall area (see Galante at column 4, lines 10-21).
Regarding claim 34, Galante teaches a specific embodiment where the both ends of the flipper are radially lower than the end of the apex (figures 1-2).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ralf Bohle in view of Shimizu and Galante as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Daghini (US Pub. No. 2007/0175561) and Henning (EP 0374356).
Regarding claim 35, Ralf Bohle (combined) does not specifically disclose that the thread count of the reinforcing cords of the loop is double the thread count of the reinforcing cords of the carcass ply, nor do they disclose either of those thread counts. Daghini teaches using a specific flipper cord and a cord density of between 40 cords/dm and 160 cords/dm (about 10-41 ends per inch) (paragraph [0122]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a flipper cord and cord density as taught by Daghini in the tire of Ralf Bohle (combined) in order to have a flipper with high strength and high flexibility (see Daghini at paragraph [0030]). Henning teaches using a carcass cord and cord density in specific embodiments of 9, 10, 11 and 12 Epi (see inventive examples, tables 6-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a carcass cord and cord density as taught by Henning in the tire of Ralf Bohle (combined) or in order to produce fabrics of standard strength while providing significant improvements in cost and performance (see Henning at page 3, lines 26-29). Such combined configurations have prior art ranges resulting in the thread count of the cords of the loop being double the thread count of the cords of the carcass ply.
Claims 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ralf Bohle in view of Shimizu and Galante or Lutz in view of Shimizu and Galante as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Nakano (US Pat. No. 5,048,584).
Regarding claim 36, Ralf Bohle and Lutz do not specifically disclose that the second and third length are substantially equal. Nakano teaches using a flipper R’’4 where the claimed second and third length are substantially equal (figure 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a second and third length substantially equal as taught by Nakano in the tire of Ralf Bohle (combined) or Lutz (combined) as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 37-38, Nakano teaches that the height h is about 0.4 to 0.6 times the maximum distance from a bead base line to an outermost position of the tread (column 5, lines 34-37; figure 1), such being about the outermost point of the bead filler, in other words, h is about equal to the claimed H1, as well as a specific embodiment where the second and third lengths are about halfway radially to the point h (see figures 6 and 1), thus teaching or suggesting using H2 and H3 about half of H1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 35-37 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 35-37 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been withdrawn. However, the rejection of claim 38 remains because this claim has not been amended.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ralf Bohle does not teach or suggest a first length H1 is at least 20% of a distance H4. However, as was set forth in the prior Office action, and has been set forth above with an annotated figure for increased clarity, Ralf Bohle teaches a range of H1/H4 well above the claimed minimum of 20%. The specific embodiment shown in figure 1 has been measured at about 39.8% (51 mm/128 mm), and the maximum disclosed embodiment using an angle of 60 degrees has been measured at about 73.4% (94 mm/128 mm). Further, Applicant argues that the application of In re Mraz is misconstrued, and that the drawings do not anticipate the claims because they do not disclose “the first length (H1) is at least 20% of a distance (H4) measured in a radial direction”. Responding to the second point first, the drawings do anticipate this feature, as the measured drawing has H1/H4 of about 39.8%, well above the claimed minimum of 20%. Further, In re Mraz has not been misconstrued. In re Mraz states, “However, we did not mean that things patent drawings show clearly are to be disregarded.” (at 1072). This statement is with respect to patent drawings in general, not merely with respect to anticipation. Further, the rejection set forth above is based on a combination of both the specification and the drawings. The specification sets forth the angle range of the tip of the apex, and the drawings depict the tire including the apex, and the combination makes clear how various embodiments at angles within the range can be constructed.
Applicant similarly argues that Lutz does not teach the claimed feature “the first length (H1) is at least 20% of a distance (H4) measured in a radial direction”. However, as was set forth in the prior Office action, and has been set forth above with an annotated figure for increased clarity, Lutz teaches a specific embodiment H1/H4 well above the claimed minimum of 20%, measured at 71.2% (89 mm/125 mm). Further, the written description of Lutz states, “The illustrated tire further includes sidewall reinforcements 52 positioned in the sidewalls. The sidewall reinforcements 52 provide added lateral stiffness to the sidewalls, which improves the direct steering impulse and directly transfers lateral forces between the bike and the ground.” (paragraph [0016]). Accordingly, given the description that the sidewall reinforcements 52 are positioned in the sidewalls, along with the motivation for doing so, together with the depiction in figure 2, is the motivation behind the rejection.
Applicant argues that Mizata fails to teach or suggest “the first length (H1) is at least 20% of a distance (H4) measured in a radial direction”, because Mizata fails to teach or suggest the height of the bicycle tire. However, as was stated in the prior Office action and again above, the tire width and section height of a bicycle tire size 26x2.1 are the same, as is listed in ISO 5775-1. As further evidence that a 26x2.1 bicycle tire has a section height of 2.1 inches, see the attached metric bicycle tire and rim designations, accessed from https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-5775.html on January 16, 2026.
Regarding claim 35, Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to modify Ralf Bohle with both Galante and Daghini, because Galante teaches the desirability of providing rigidity to the lower bead and sidewall area, but Galante teaches a flipper with high flexibility. However, this is an inappropriately narrow reading of Daghini. Daghini specifically discloses “In fact, since the flipper is used to increase the stiffness of the bead area” (paragraph [0032] - emphasis added). Accordingly, Daghini recognizes that a flipper increases stiffness, i.e. rigidity, and there is no change in principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, nor rendering the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
Regarding claim 39, Applicant argues that Ralf Bohle does not teach or suggest a first length H1 between 30 and 35 millimeters, because Ralf Bohle teaches a specific embodiment having a range of 20 to 25 mm. However, as was set forth in the prior Office action and again above, given the teachings of Ralf Bohle above about the apex extending from an angle in a range of +/- 60 to 120 degrees, in particular 115 degrees and a specific embodiment having an apex with a length of 20 to 25 mm, viewing figure 1 indicates that most of the angular range of the apex is below 115 degrees, which results in an increased length of apex, where viewing the 60 degree position, such would have an apex length of about double the disclosed specific embodiment, and as such have an extension length of about 40 to 50 mm, thus a range of apex length of 20 mm to about 50 mm overlaps the claimed range of claim 39. It is further noted that Ralf Bohle is not limited to the measurements set forth in one specific embodiment.
Regarding claim 40, Applicant argues that the combination rejection relying on Shinzawa relies on faulty assumptions, and therefore does not render the claimed range of a dynamic elastic modulus E’ measured at 23 degrees C and 10 Hz of between 3 MPa and 10 MPa. However, the Office’s reasoning is reasonable and stands. The Office stated that the conditions of Shinzawa were quite similar to that required by claim 26 (60 degrees C and 20 Hz vs 70 degrees C and 10 Hz). The Office then made a reasonable extrapolation based on Applicant’s evidence that the modulus range taught by Shinzawa would overlap the modulus range of claim 40 when measured at the claimed conditions. This is not impermissible hindsight reasoning – Shinzawa is being relied upon as a known preferable dynamic elastic modulus for an elastic filler in a tire, not for an impermissible reason. Applicant’s evidence is merely being used as evidence that the dynamic elastic modulus range of Shinzawa would overlap that of Applicant if measured using Applicant’s conditions.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1612. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.N.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 January 16, 2026
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749