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.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “about” in claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 15-18 and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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. The claimed values recited following the term “about” are not definite in claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 15-18 and 20.
The term “substantial” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantial” 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. It is not definite what is meant by “a surface area of the thermo-resistive layer substantially corresponds with a surface area of a presented surface of the thermal plate” as recited in claim 13.
Claims 19 and 20 appear to depend from claim 18, but are recited as depending from claim 17 such that it is not definite which claim(s) they depend from. For examination purposes, claims 19 and 20 are interpreted as depending from claim 18.
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) 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2048912 A1 to MENNECHEZ et al. (“MENNECHEZ“) in view of DE 102010043105 A1 to GERVASI et al. (“GERVASI”).
MENNECHEZ discloses:
Regarding claim 1:
a body (e.g., furnace 11) (e.g., Fig. 2 and para 37);
a chamber (e.g., cavity 12) defined by the body, wherein the chamber comprises an upper region and a lower region (e.g., Fig. 2 and para 37); and
a thermal plate (e.g., heating plates numbered 55, 54, 53, 52 and 51) that provides heat to the chamber, wherein the thermal plate comprises a coating (e.g., tempered glass sheet 9 coated on one side with a resistive layer 8), wherein the coating comprises a thermo-resistive layer (e.g., resistive layer 8), and wherein the thermal plate is positioned in at least one location chosen from the upper region and the lower region of the chamber (e.g., Fig. 1-3 and para 37-53);
Regarding claim 2: the heating apparatus of claim 1, wherein the thermo-resistive layer has a thickness that is between about 20 nm and about 60 nm (e.g., the thickness of the resistive layers is between 10 and 2000 nanometers, preferably between 100 and 1000 nm) (e.g., para 18);
Regarding claim 13. The heating apparatus of claim 1, wherein a surface area of the thermo-resistive layer substantially corresponds with a surface area of a presented surface of the thermal plate (e.g., Fig. 1-3 and para 37-53).
MENNECHEZ does not explicitly disclose the thermo-resistive layer comprises a polymeric portion and a nanostructure portion (as recited in claim 1).
However, GERVASI discloses:
Regarding claim 1: wherein the thermo-resistive layer comprises a polymeric portion (e.g., hyperbranched polymers 103) and a nanostructure portion (e.g., nanoparticles 105) (e.g., Fig. 2-3 and para 20-27);
Regarding claim 2: the heating apparatus of claim 1, wherein the thermo-resistive layer has a thickness that is between about 20 nm and about 60 nm (e.g., Any of the many nanoparticles 105 may be at least one dimension in the range of about 1 nm to about 500 nm) (e.g., Fig. 2-3 and para 20-27);
Regarding claim 5: the heating apparatus of claim 1, wherein the polymeric portion comprises a two-part liquid silicone rubber (e.g., Exemplary materials for the compliant layer 304 can silicone rubbers such. Room temperature vulcanizing (RTV) silicone rubbers, high temperature vulcanizing (HTV) silicone rubbers, and low temperature vulcanizing (LTV) silicone rubbers include, but are not limited to, room temperature vulcanizing (RTV) silicone rubbers. Exemplary commercially available silicone rubbers include SILASTIC .sup.® 735 black RTV and SILASTIC .sup.® 732 RTV (Dow Corning Corp., Midland, MI, USA); and, but not limited to, 106 RTV silicone rubber and 90 RTV silicone rubber (General Electric, Albany, NY, USA). Other suitable silicone materials, Sylgard 182 .sup.® (Dow Corning Corp., Midland, MI, USA); Siloxanes (preferably polydimethylsiloxanes); Fluorosilicone such. Silicone rubber 552 (Sampson Coatings, Richmond, VA, USA); dimethyl silicones; liquid silicone rubbers, such as. As vinyl-crosslinked, thermosetting rubbers or at room temperature silanol-crosslinked materials and the like, but are not limited thereto.) (e.g., Fig. 2-3 and para 20-27);
Regarding claim 6: the heating apparatus of claim 1, wherein the nanostructure portion comprises graphene nano-platelets (e.g., In various embodiments, the plurality on nanoparticles 105 comprise one or more of a plurality of nanoparticles, a plurality of nanotubes and a plurality of nanoplates. Exemplary nanoparticles 105 may include, but are not limited to, one or more of graphene, carbon, alumina, aluminum nitride, silica, silicon carbide, silicon nitride, copper, single walled carbon nanotubes, and multiwalled carbon nanotubes), and wherein a thickness of the graphene nano-platelets is in the range of about 0.25 nm to about 12.5 nm (e.g., Any of the many nanoparticles 105 may be at least one dimension in the range of about 1 nm to about 500 nm) (e.g., Fig. 2-3 and para 20-27);
Regarding claim 10: the heating apparatus of claim 1, wherein the coating on the thermal plate comprises a primer layer (e.g., layer 304) that is positioned between a substrate (e.g., substrate 302) of the thermal plate and the thermo- resistive layer (e.g., layer 306) (e.g., Fig. 2A-3 and para 27-29); and
Regarding claim 12: the heating apparatus of claim 1, wherein the thermal plate comprises a substrate (e.g., substrate 102, 302), and wherein the substrate comprises aluminum (e.g., In some embodiments, the substrate may be 102 . 302 a metallic substrate, such as steel, iron and aluminum) (e.g., Fig. 2-3 and para 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or at the time before the effective filing date (post AIA ) to modify MENNECHEZ as suggested and taught by GERVASI in order to provide improved mechanical strength and electrical conductivity.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2048912 A1 to MENNECHEZ et al. (“MENNECHEZ“) in view of DE 102010043105 A1 to GERVASI et al. (“GERVASI”) and further in view of US 20100126981 A1 to Heintz et al. (“Heintz”).
MENNECHEZ in view of GERVASI discloses substantially all of the features of the claimed invention as set forth above.
MENNECHEZ in view of GERVASI does not explicitly disclose a thermal conductivity of the thermal plate is between about 0.20 W/mK and about 0.90 W/mK (as recited in claim 3)
However, Heintz discloses:
Regarding claim 3: the heating apparatus of claim 1, wherein a thermal conductivity of the thermal plate is between about 0.20 W/mK and about 0.90 W/mK (e.g., para 66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or at the time before the effective filing date (post AIA ) to modify MENNECHEZ in view of GERVASI as suggested and taught by Heintz in order to exhibit stability in the desired temperature range, and provide suitable mechanical and adhesion properties for use with adjacent layers in a multilayer coating structure.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2048912 A1 to MENNECHEZ et al. (“MENNECHEZ“) in view of DE 102010043105 A1 to GERVASI et al. (“GERVASI”) and further in view of US 20200062911 A1 to Takagi et al. (“Takagi”).
MENNECHEZ in view of GERVASI discloses substantially all of the features of the claimed invention as set forth above.
MENNECHEZ in view of GERVASI does not explicitly disclose a top layer that comprises a vinyl ester resin, a polytetrafluoroethylene, and ceramic nanoparticles (as recited in claim 7).
However, Takagi discloses:
Regarding claim 7: the heating apparatus of claim 1, wherein the coating on the thermal plate comprises: a top layer that comprises a vinyl ester resin (e.g., para 84, 124, 133), a polytetrafluoroethylene (e.g., para 81), and ceramic nanoparticles (e.g., para 110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or at the time before the effective filing date (post AIA ) to modify MENNECHEZ in view of GERVASI as suggested and taught by Takagi in order to exhibit properties inherent in the organic polymer such as lightweight properties, designability, molding processability, cutting processability, integral moldability, dimension stability, and enhancement in physical properties according to use application while taking advantage of properties inherent in the high thermal conductive filler containing the filler having a graphite-like structure to be used, is excellent in thermal conductivity, heat dissipation properties, electrical characteristics, thermal resistance, mechanical characteristics, thermal cycle properties, and the like, and can meet various requirements for final products of electric/electronic equipment, rotating electrical machines, and the like.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2048912 A1 to MENNECHEZ et al. (“MENNECHEZ“) in view of DE 102010043105 A1 to GERVASI et al. (“GERVASI”) and further in view of US 2914758 A to RETZINGER (“RETZINGER”).
MENNECHEZ in view of GERVASI discloses substantially all of the features of the claimed invention as set forth above.
MENNECHEZ in view of GERVASI does not explicitly disclose a resistance of the thermo-resistive layer is in the range of about 30,000 ohms to about 60,000 ohms when operated at 110 volts (as recited in claim 11).
However, RETZINGER discloses:
Regarding claim 11: the heating apparatus of claim 1, wherein a resistance of the thermo-resistive layer is in the range of about 30,000 ohms to about 60,000 ohms when operated at 110 volts (e.g., col 9, ln 60-72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or at the time before the effective filing date (post AIA ) to modify MENNECHEZ in view of GERVASI as suggested and taught by RETZINGER in order to provide an apparatus which is simple, compact, inexpensive and reliable and to provide an improved weighting network which operates in a balanced manner to produce an output 'voltage accurately representing the weighted value of a plurality of signals introduced to it.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2048912 A1 to MENNECHEZ et al. (“MENNECHEZ“) in view of DE 102010043105 A1 to GERVASI et al. (“GERVASI”) and further in view of US 20160237591 A1 to HANRATH et al. (“HANRATH”).
MENNECHEZ in view of GERVASI discloses substantially all of the features of the claimed invention as set forth above.
MENNECHEZ discloses:
Regarding claim 14:
a body (e.g., furnace 11) (e.g., Fig. 1-3 and para 37-53);
a chamber (e.g., cavity 12) defined by the body, wherein the chamber comprises an upper region and a lower region (e.g., Fig. 1-3 and para 37-53); and
a thermal plate (e.g., heating plates numbered 55, 54, 53, 52 and 51) that provides heat to the chamber, wherein the thermal plate comprises a coating (e.g., tempered glass sheet 9 coated on one side with a resistive layer 8), wherein the coating comprises a thermo-resistive layer (e.g., resistive layer 8), wherein the thermo-resistive layer receives power from a power source (e.g., Fig. 1-3 and para 37-53),.
MENNECHEZ does not explicitly disclose wherein the thermo-resistive layer comprises a polymeric portion and a nanostructure portion (as recited in claim 14).
However, GERVASI discloses:
Regarding claim 14:
wherein the thermo-resistive layer comprises a polymeric portion (e.g., hyperbranched polymers 103) and a nanostructure portion (e.g., nanoparticles 105) (e.g., Fig. 2-3 and para 20-27).
MENNECHEZ in view of GERVASI does not explicitly disclose wherein the thermo-resistive layer reaches a temperature of at least 350ᵒC in less than two minutes from initially receiving power from the power source (as recited in claims 4 and 14).
However, HANRATH discloses:
Regarding claim 4: the heating apparatus of claim 1, wherein the thermo-resistive layer receives power from a power source, and wherein the thermo-resistive layer reaches a temperature of at least 350ᵒC in less than two minutes from initially receiving power from the power source (e.g., para 74); and
Regarding claim 14:
wherein the thermo-resistive layer reaches a temperature of at least 350ᵒC in less than two minutes from initially receiving power from the power source (e.g., para 74), and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or at the time before the effective filing date (post AIA ) to modify MENNECHEZ as suggested and taught by GERVASI in order to provide improved mechanical strength and electrical conductivity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or at the time before the effective filing date (post AIA ) to modify MENNECHEZ in view of GERVASI as suggested and taught by HANRATH in order to enable localized heating efficiently.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2048912 A1 to MENNECHEZ et al. (“MENNECHEZ“) in view of DE 102010043105 A1 to GERVASI et al. (“GERVASI”) and further in view of US 20160237591 A1 to HANRATH et al. (“HANRATH”) and further in view of US 20100126981 A1 to Heintz et al. (“Heintz”).
MENNECHEZ in view of GERVASI and HANRATH discloses substantially all of the features of the claimed invention as set forth above.
MENNECHEZ also discloses:
Regarding claim 15: the heating apparatus of claim 14, wherein the thermo-resistive layer has a thickness that is between about 20 nm and about 60 nm (e.g., the thickness of the resistive layers is between 10 and 2000 nanometers, preferably between 100 and 1000 nm) (e.g., para 18).
GERVASI also discloses:
Regarding claim 15: the heating apparatus of claim 14, wherein the thermo-resistive layer has a thickness that is between about 20 nm and about 60 nm (e.g., Any of the many nanoparticles 105 may be at least one dimension in the range of about 1 nm to about 500 nm) (e.g., Fig. 2-3 and para 20-21); and
Regarding claim 16: the heating apparatus of claim 15, wherein the polymeric portion comprises a two-part liquid silicone rubber, wherein the nanostructure portion comprises graphene nano-platelets (e.g., Fig. 2-3 and para 20-27), and
wherein a thickness of the graphene nano-platelets is in the range of about 0.25 nm to about 12.5 nm (e.g., Any of the many nanoparticles 105 may be at least one dimension in the range of about 1 nm to about 500 nm) (e.g., Fig. 2-3 and para 20-21).
MENNECHEZ in view of GERVASI and HANRATH does not explicitly disclose the thermo-resistive layer has a thickness that is between about 20 nm and about 60 nm (as recited in claim 15).
However, Heintz discloses:
Regarding claim 15: wherein a thermal conductivity of the thermal plate is between about 0.20 W/mK and about 0.90 W/mK (e.g., e.g., para 66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or at the time before the effective filing date (post AIA ) to modify MENNECHEZ in view of GERVASI and HANRATH as suggested and taught by Heintz in order to exhibit stability in the desired temperature range, and provide suitable mechanical and adhesion properties for use with adjacent layers in a multilayer coating structure.
Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2048912 A1 to MENNECHEZ et al. (“MENNECHEZ“) in view of DE 102010043105 A1 to GERVASI et al. (“GERVASI”) and further in view of US 20100126981 A1 to Heintz et al. (“Heintz”).
MENNECHEZ discloses:
Regarding claim 18:
a body (e.g., furnace 11) (e.g., Fig. 1-3 and para 37-53);
a chamber (e.g., cavity 12) defined by the body, wherein the chamber comprises an upper region and a lower region (e.g., Fig. 1-3 and para 37-53); and
a thermal plate (e.g., heating plates numbered 55, 54, 53, 52 and 51) that provides heat to the chamber, wherein the thermal plate comprises a coating (e.g., mpered glass sheet 9 coated on one side with a resistive layer 8), wherein the coating comprises a thermo-resistive layer (e.g., resistive layer 8) (e.g., Fig. 1-3 and para 37-53),
wherein the thermo-resistive layer has a thickness that is between about 20 nm and about 60 nm (e.g., para 18),
wherein the thermal plate is positioned in at least one location chosen from the upper region and the lower region of the chamber (e.g., Fig. 1-3 and para 37-53).
MENNECHEZ does not explicitly disclose wherein the thermo-resistive layer comprises a polymeric portion and a nanostructure portion (as recited in claim 18).
However, GERVASI discloses:
Regarding claim 18:
wherein the thermo-resistive layer comprises a polymeric portion (e.g., hyperbranched polymers 103) and a nanostructure portion (e.g., nanoparticles 105) (e.g., Fig. 2-3 and para 20-27),
wherein the thermo-resistive layer has a thickness that is between about 20 nm and about 60 nm (e.g., Fig. 2-3 and para 20-27); and
Regarding claim 20: the heating apparatus of claim 17 (as noted above, this claim is understood to depend from claim 18), wherein the polymeric portion comprises a two-part liquid silicone rubber, wherein the nanostructure portion comprises graphene nano-platelets, and wherein a thickness of the graphene nano-platelets is in the range of about 0.25 nm to about 12.5 nm (e.g., Fig. 2-3 and para 20-27).
MENNECHEZ in view of GERVASI does not explicitly disclose a thermal conductivity of the thermal plate is between about 0.20 W/mK and about 0.90 W/mK (as recited in claim 18).
However, Heintz discloses:
Regarding claim 18:
wherein a thermal conductivity of the thermal plate is between about 0.20 W/mK and about 0.90 W/mK (e.g., para 66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or at the time before the effective filing date (post AIA ) to modify MENNECHEZ as suggested and taught by GERVASI in order to provide improved mechanical strength and electrical conductivity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or at the time before the effective filing date (post AIA ) to modify MENNECHEZ in view of GERVASI as suggested and taught by Heintz in order to exhibit stability in the desired temperature range, and provide suitable mechanical and adhesion properties for use with adjacent layers in a multilayer coating structure.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2048912 A1 to MENNECHEZ et al. (“MENNECHEZ“) in view of DE 102010043105 A1 to GERVASI et al. (“GERVASI”) and US 20100126981 A1 to Heintz et al. (“Heintz”) and further in view of US 20160237591 A1 to HANRATH et al. (“HANRATH”).
MENNECHEZ in view of GERVASI and Heintz discloses substantially all of the features of the claimed invention as set forth above.
MENNECHEZ in view of GERVASI and Heintz does not explicitly disclose the thermo-resistive layer receives power from a power source, and wherein the thermo-resistive layer reaches a temperature of at least 350ᵒC in less than two minutes from initially receiving power from the power source (as recited in claim 19).
However, HANRATH discloses:
Regarding claim 19: the heating apparatus of claim 17 (as noted above, this claim is understood to depend from claim 18), wherein the thermo-resistive layer receives power from a power source, and wherein the thermo-resistive layer reaches a temperature of at least 350ᵒC in less than two minutes from initially receiving power from the power source (e.g., para 74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (pre-AIA ) or at the time before the effective filing date (post AIA ) to modify MENNECHEZ in view of GERVASI and Heintz as suggested and taught by HANRATH in order to enable localized heating efficiently.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9 and 17 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
MENNECHEZ in view of GERVASI discloses the heating body as claimed and Takagi discloses a top layer that comprises a vinyl ester resin a polytetrafluoroethylene and ceramic nanoparticles as set forth above. However, the prior art, including MENNECHEZ in view of GERVASI and Takagi, does not disclose or render obvious: the heating apparatus of claim 7, wherein the ceramic nanoparticles are present at a concentration of between about 70% by weight of the top layer and about 80% by weight of the top layer, wherein the polytetrafluoroethylene is present at a concentration between about 6% by weight of the top layer and about 10% of the top layer, and wherein the vinyl ester resin is present at a balancing concentration for the top layer (as recited in claim 8); he heating apparatus of claim 7, wherein the coating on the thermal plate comprises a barrier layer that is positioned between the top layer and the thermo-resistive layer, and wherein the barrier layer is configured to withstand a dielectric breakdown voltage of at least about 1,500 volts (as recited in claim 9); or the heating apparatus of claim 16, wherein the coating on the thermal plate comprises: a top layer that comprises a vinyl ester resin, a polytetrafluoroethylene, and ceramic nanoparticles, wherein the ceramic nanoparticles are present at a concentration of between about 70% by weight of the top layer and about 80% by weight of the top layer, wherein the polytetrafluoroethylene is present at a concentration between about 6% by weight of the top layer and about 10% of the top layer, and wherein the vinyl ester resin is present at a balancing concentration for the top layer (as recited in claim 17).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S STAPLETON whose telephone number is (571)270-3492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday regular business hours.
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, EDWARD (NED) LANDRUM can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/ERIC S STAPLETON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 August 9, 2025
Prosecution Insights