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 .
Claims 1-27 are pending and being examined.
Response to Amendment
The previous rejection of Claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends is/are withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
The previous rejection of Claim(s) 1-11, and 13-25, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2000-290409 A to Yagyu et al. (hereinafter Yagyu) and in further view of US 2016/0194491 A1 to Taguchi et al. (hereinafter Taguchi), and/or US 5,741,855 A to Kaduk et al. (hereinafter Kaduk) is/are withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s arguments.
The previous rejection of Claim(s) 12, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2000-290409 A to Yagyu et al. (hereinafter Yagyu) and in further view of US 2016/0194491 A1 to Taguchi et al. (hereinafter Taguchi), and/or US 5,741,855 A to Kaduk et al. (hereinafter Kaduk), as applied to claim 1, and in further view of US 2008/0097035 A1 to Takahashi et al. (hereinafter Takahashi) is/are withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 26 recites the properties of the cross linkable composition “wherein after irradiation at 20 kGy the composition retains a tensile strength of at least 9 MPa after heat aging at 270 degrees Celsius for 168 hours.” However, the Applicant’s specification does not recite any tensile strength for the claimed broad range of “at least 9 MPa.” The only place shown in the Applicant’s specification is Table 3 which shows a tensile strength range of 9.08 to 15.44. Thus, because there is no description of the “at least 9 MPa,” in the Applicant’s specification, the limitation is considered new matter and not supported.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 6, 7, 9-10, 12-19, 26 and 27, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2019/018352 A1 in which US 2020/0181387 A1 to Jiang et al. is used as a US equivalent below. (hereinafter Jiang).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-10, 12-19, 26 and 27, Jiang teaches a curable composition comprising an amorphous fluoropolymer, a peroxide cure system with a type II coagent, and a photoinitiator, which is cured by actinic radiation (See abstract). Specifically, Jiang teaches in Example 6, a composition of 22.6 parts (74.8 wt%) of a fluoropolymer 3 (a polymer blend of an amorphous fluoropolymer with a fluoroelastomer portion of vinylidene fluoride and hexafluoropropylene, See Table 1), 6.8 parts (22.5 wt%) of a fluoroplastic of tetrafluoroethylene and perfluoropropylvinylether (PFA 6502TAZ, melting point 308 deg C, semicrystalline, density 2.15 g/cm3), triallyl isocyanurate (TAIC), 2,5-bis(tert-butylperoxy)-2,5-dimethylhexane (DBPH), and bis(2,4,6-trmethylbenzoyl)phenylphosphine oxide (Iragacure 819) is mixed and applied as a coating upon a polyimide film and the coating is cured with exposure to actinic radiation with a UV lamp. (para 193, See Table 5). The above fluoropolymer 3 meets the claimed elastomeric fluoropolymer, the above PFA 6502TAZ meets the claimed semi-crystalline fluoroplastic with m.p. of 308 deg C, and the triallyl isocyanurate meets the claimed radiation crosslinking promoter with three ethylenic double bonds.
Regarding the claimed tensile properties of claim 26, one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation for the composition of Jiang to inherently have the claimed tensile properties of the claimed invention because Jiang teaches a substantially identical composition to the claimed invention such as the same elastomeric fluoropolymer and the same semi-crystalline fluoroplastic with the m.p., in the same amount ratios and Applicant further teaches that the favorable tensile strength and flexibility characteristics are achieved by the weight ratio of elastic fluoropolymer to semi-crystalline fluoroplastic. (See para 23-24 of US publication). See MPEP 2112.01. (Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 10, 12-19, and 26-27, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4,713,418 A to Logothetis et al. (hereinafter Logothetis) as evidenced by KKM Uszczelnienia, “PFA,” accessed 04/22/2026 at https://uszczelnieniatechniczne.pl/en/pfa-2/#:~:text=Perfluoroalkoxy%20(PFA)%20resins%20are%20produced,called%20%E2%80%9Ccold%20flow%E2%80%9D, (hereinafter KKM), Topda, “Polyfluoroalkyoxy (PFA),” accessed 04/22/2026 at https://www.fluorochemie.com/products/fluororesins/polyfluoroalkoxy-pfa, (hereinafter Topda), and Fiildtekii, “PFA Manufacturer Process,” 11/26/2025, PFA accessed 04/22/2026 at https://fiildtekii.com/sys-nd/69.html, (hereinafter Fiildtekii).
Regarding claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12-19, 26-27, Logothetis teaches a composition blend is obtained by mixing 100 parts of a fluoroelastomer (57 wt% or 68.8 mol% from tetrafluoroethylene, 42 wt% or 30.6 mol% from perfluoromethyl vinyl ether, and 4-bromo-3,3,4-tetrafluorobutene), with 33 parts of a thermoplastic copolymer (97 wt% tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) and 3 wt% of perfluoropropyl vinyl ether (PPVE), semicrystalline, m.p. 302-310 deg C), and then further mixing with 7 parts of triallyl isocyanurate and 4 parts of 2,5-dimethyl-2,5-di(t-butyl-peroxy)hexane, where the composition is formed into a sheet and cured at 190 deg C for 15 minutes and then 288 deg C for 48 hours, (Example 10, Table VII, col 8, ln 1-49). Fiildtekii teaches that commercial PFA is made from 95-97% TFE and 3-5% PPVE, with a m.p. of 302-310 deg C, KKM shows that that PFA is semicrystalline (60% crystallinity), and Topda teaches that PFA has a density range of 2.12-2.17 g/cm3. The above is cured at 190 deg C and post cured (heat aged) by raising the temp slowly to 288 deg C for 48 hours. (col 8, ln 22-27). The test pieces has a tensile strength of 14 MPa. (See Table VII), which meets the claimed tensile strength of claim 26.
Although, the claimed tensile properties are “after irradiation…heat aging,” this is a product-by-process claim. Here, Logothetis teaches each and every component of the crosslinked composition such as the same elastomeric fluoropolymer and the same semi-crystalline fluoroplastic with the m.p., in the same amount ratios, that is cured and heat-aged. Thus, the product is the same and reads upon the claims. See MPEP 2113. (“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-10, 13-19, 26 and 27, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015-034278 A to Abe et al. (hereinafter Abe).
Regarding claims 1-10, 13-19, 26 and 27, Abe teaches a fluororesin composition comprising a fluorine-containing resin (A), a compound (B), (See abstract), and a fluorine-containing rubber (C) (para 34). Abe also teaches the composition is obtained by melt mixing in a kneader 47.6 parts (%) of the fluorine-containing resin (A), 4.8 parts (%) of a melamine compound (B-1), and 47.6 parts (%) of a fluorine-containing rubber (C) such as tetrafluoroethylene-propylene (AFLAS-150C) (See example 9, Table 2, para 95), which meets the claimed amount in claim 27. Abe further teaches that fluorine-containing resin is specifically (A-4), a copolymer of tetrafluoroethylene (TFE), nadic anhydride (NAH), and perfluoropropyl vinyl ether (PVE), having a melting point of 300 deg C, (Example 5, para 110-114). The above composition is molded to form an article used as a coating material, covering material or tube material for electric wires (para 63 and 122), specifically hot press molded at 330 deg C, (para 117), and the melamine compound (B) acts as a crosslinking agent, (para 66), and wherein examples of the melamine compound includes triallyl isocyanurate (para 28), which meets the claimed radiation crosslinking promoter. Abe specifically teaches that the above fluororesin has a melting point because it contains a crystalline structure and an amorphous portion mixed in the molecular structure, (para 36), i.e. semi-crystalline. The above copolymer (A-4) of TFE-NA-PVE meets the claimed semi-crystalline thermoplastic copolymer (the above copolymer of TFE and PVE is semi-crystalline), melting point, and anhydride grafted cited in claims 1, 8-11. The above tetrafluoroethylene-propylene (AFLAS-150C) meets the claimed elastomeric fluoropolymer cited in claims 1-5. Abe also teaches the above fluorine-containing resin (A) with a carbonyl group enhances heat resistance and stress crack resistance (para 17), the above melamine crosslinker improves heat and stress crack resistance (para 27), and the above fluorine-containing rubber (C) improves flexibility (para 34).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to use the fluorine-containing resin is specifically (A-4) as the fluorine-containing resin (A), the triallyl isocyanurate for the melamine compound (B), and the above AFLAS-150C for the fluorine-containing rubber (C) in the Examples of Abe because Abe teaches them as specific and/or suitable examples of the fluorine-containing resin (A), the melamine compound (B), and the fluorine-containing rubber (C) and Abe further teaches the above fluorine-containing resin (A) with a carbonyl group enhances heat resistance and stress crack resistance (para 17), the above melamine crosslinker improves heat and stress crack resistance (para 27), and the above fluorine-containing rubber (C) improves flexibility (para 34).
Regarding the claimed tensile properties of claim 26, one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation for the composition of Abe to inherently have the claimed tensile properties of the claimed invention because Abe teaches a substantially identical composition to the claimed invention such as the same AFLAS-150C for elastomeric fluoropolymer and the same semi-crystalline fluoroplastic having anhydride functional groups within the same amount ratios and Applicant further teaches that the favorable tensile strength and flexibility characteristics are achieved by the weight ratio of elastic fluoropolymer to semi-crystalline fluoroplastic. (See para 23-24 of US publication), and this is further evident by the cured compositions of Abe having a tensile strength of 85-96 MPa after being heat aged for 1008 hours at 200 deg C. (See Table 1, examples 1-5 and para 72). See MPEP 2112.01. (Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 7, 9-10, 12-15, 17-19, 26 and 27, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2008/0097035 A1 to Takahashi et al. (hereinafter Takahashi).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-10, 12-15, 17-19, 26 and 27, Takahashi teaches cured articles prepared from a composition comprising a blend of perfluoroelastomer, and 51-300 phr of semi-crystalline thermoplastic comprising tetrafluoroethylene and perfluoro(alkyl vinyl ether) (See abstract). Specifically, 100 parts of a perfluoroelastomer containing tetrafluoroethylene, perfluoro(ethyl vinyl ether and perfluoro(8-cyano5-methyl-3,6-dioxa-1-octene) is mixed and melt blended with 51 parts of the semi-crystalline fluoropolymer of a copolymer of tetrafluoroethylene with perfluoro(ethyl vinyl ether) and/or perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether), (See Teflon PFA 940, density 2.15 g/ml, m.p. 290 deg C), urea and ethylene diamine, and the melt blend is then cured. (para 64-67). Takahashi further teaches that the semi-crystalline fluoropolymers are perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) (PFA), with a melting point range of 285-310 deg C (para 30), which overlaps and meets the claimed melting point. (See MPEP 2144.05, “where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”). The PFA fluoropolymers are preferred for facilitating blending (para 30) and give the cured composition good sealing properties, strength and chemical resistance. (para 8 and 41). The above is used in articles with good sealing properties, seals, tubes and wire jackets (para 41-42). Takahashi also teaches curing coagents such as triallyl (iso)cyanurate (para 37-38) may be added in amounts of 0.1-10 parts per 100 parts of the perfluoroelastomer (para 37).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention for the semi-crystalline fluoropolymer of the Examples in Takahashi to have the claimed melting point range because Takahashi teaches that the semi-crystalline fluoropolymers are perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) (PFA), with a melting point range of 285-310 deg C (para 30), which overlaps and meets the claimed melting point. (See MPEP 2144.05, “where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”), and the PFA fluoropolymers are preferred for facilitating blending (para 30) and give the cured composition good sealing properties, strength and chemical resistance. (para 8 and 41).
Regarding the claimed tensile properties of claim 26, one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation for the composition of Takahashi to inherently have the claimed tensile properties of the claimed invention because Takahashi teaches a substantially identical composition to the claimed invention such as the same elastomeric fluoropolymer and the same semi-crystalline fluoroplastic within the same amount ratios and Applicant further teaches that the favorable tensile strength and flexibility characteristics are achieved by the weight ratio of elastic fluoropolymer to semi-crystalline fluoroplastic. (See para 23-24 of US publication). See MPEP 2112.01. (Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-27, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015/098339 A1 to Osumi et al. (hereainfter Osumi) and in further view of US 2021/0309813 A1 to Tucker et al. (hereinafter Tucker).
Regarding claims 1-11, 13-27, Osumi teaches a method of forming crosslinked rubber moldings by a first crosslinking step of partially crosslinking a rubber composition to form a moldable first crosslinked product, and a second crosslinking step of subjecting the first crosslinked product to ionizing radiation to form a second crosslinked product (See abstract). The rubber composition comprises a 145 parts (84.7 wt%) if fluoroelastomers tetrafluoroethylene(TFE)-propylene polymer (FKM2) and fluorine-based elastomer,(See Examples 2), a peroxide crosslinking agent (para 52), with 6 parts (3 wt% of total composition) of a co-crosslinking agent of triallyl isocyanurate (para 52 and Example 2), and a 20 parts (11.7 wt%) of thermoplastic fluororesin (examples 2-8), such as tetrafluoroethylene-perfluoroalkyl vinyl ether copolymer (PFA) (para 28), which meets the claimed semi-crystalline fluoroplastic. Osumi further teaches that the above ionizing radiation is at a dose of 10-500 kGy (para 41), and after the second crosslinking step, the second crosslinked product is further heat treated at a temperature of 100-320 deg C, which meets the ionizing and heat aging steps of claims 20-25 and the above of triallyl isocyanurate meets the claimed radiation crosslinking promoter and amount of claims 1, 16, 20, and 27.
Osumi does not explicitly teach wherein the semi-crystalline fluoroplastic has a melting point of 290-340 deg C.
However, Tucker teaches a fluoropolymer composition comprising a first fluoropolymer, a second fluoropolymer such as anhydride-functionalized perfluoroalkoxy copolymer or polyethylene-tetrafluoroethylene copolymer (See abstract), used in the field for industrial hoses (para 8), which is in the same field of use of curable fluoropolymer compositions of the Applicant’s invention. Tucker further teaches wherein the second fluoropolymer is specifically a copolymer of tetrafluoroethylene, perfluoropropylvinylether and a dicarboxylic dianhydride (para 26-27), i.e. anhydride PFA, with a melting point from 150-320 deg C (para 12), which meets the claimed semi-crystalline fluoroplastic and overlaps and meets the claimed m.p. range. Tucker further teaches that the melting point of the second fluoropolymer is excellent in melt co-extrudability (para 12), and by further including the second fluoropolymer in the composition results in improve physical properties such as flexural strength and elongation. (para 52-54, Table 1, para 61-76).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to further include the anhydride-PFA second fluoropolymer of Tucker in the composition of Osumi because Tucker teaches the same field of use of curable fluoropolymer compositions of the Applicant’s invention, and Tucker further teaches that the melting point of the second fluoropolymer is excellent in melt co-extrudability (para 12), and by further including the second fluoropolymer in the composition results in improve physical properties such as flexural strength and elongation. (para 52-54, Table 1, para 61-76).
Regarding the heat aging duration range, the step of heat ageing appears to be a properties testing procedure in relation to testing the tensile strength properties of the crosslinked product. Thus, the duration of the heat aging would have been obvious to one ordinarily skill in the art because heat ageing temperature and length of time is chosen to test strength properties and would have been obvious by the optimization of ranges through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regard to the tensile strength properties of the crosslinked product after heat ageing, one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation for the crosslinked composition of Osumi and Tucker to have the claimed tensile strength properties because Osumi and Tucker teaches a substantially identical composition to the claimed invention such as Osumi teaches the same fluororesin composition blend of the elastomeric fluoropolymer and semi-crystalline fluoroplastic and Tucker teaches the fluoroplastic with the same melting point range, and Osumi teaches the same radiation crosslinking promoter, and further teaches the fluororesin composition is crosslinked by an irradiation dose of 10-500 kGy with a post cure heat of 100-320 deg C, and the Applicant further teaches that the irradiation dose level range of 5-100 kGy gives the crosslinked composition its improved tensile strength properties. (See para 33 of US publication). See MPEP 2112.01. (Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in part.
On page 7, the Applicant argues that Abe does not teach an fluoropolymer that is semi-crystalline with the claimed melting point. This is not persuasive because Abe specifically teaches a fluorine-containing resin is specifically (A-4), a copolymer of tetrafluoroethylene (TFE), nadic anhydride (NAH), and perfluoropropyl vinyl ether (PVE), having a melting point of 300 deg C, (Example 5, para 110-114), and specifically teaches that the above fluororesin has a melting point because it contains a crystalline structure and an amorphous portion mixed in the molecular structure, (para 36), i.e. semi-crystalline. The Applicant also argues that Abe does not teaching a radiation crosslinking promoter. This is not persuasive because, as cited above, Abe teaches an example of a melamine compound crosslinker includes triallyl isocyanurate (para 28), which meets the claimed radiation crosslinking promoter.
On page 8, the Applicant argues that Takahashi does not the semicrystalline fluoroplastic with a m.p. between 290-340 deg C. This is not persuasive because Takahashi teaches that the semi-crystalline fluoropolymers are perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) (PFA), with a melting point range of 285-310 deg C (para 30), which overlaps and meets the claimed melting point. (See MPEP 2144.05, “where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”). The Applicant further argues Takahashi does not teach an elastomeric fluoropolymer and/or the radiation crosslinking promoter. This is not persuasive because, as cited above, the perfluoroelastomer is taught in the examples of Takahashi and further teaches a coagent such as “triallyl (iso)cyanurate” may be added (para 37).
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8-10, filed 01/10/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 1-11, and 13-25, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2000-290409 A to Yagyu et al. (hereinafter Yagyu) and in further view of US 2016/0194491 A1 to Taguchi et al. (hereinafter Taguchi), and/or US 5,741,855 A to Kaduk et al. (hereinafter Kaduk) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of WO 2015/098339 A1 to Osumi et al. (hereainfter Osumi) and in further view of US 2021/0309813 A1 to Tucker et al. (hereinafter Tucker).
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 HA S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7395. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, Flex schedule 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/HA S NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights