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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 1st, 2025 has been entered.
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 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 11 and 13 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.
Regarding claim 11, “fine stretching of 1.0% to 5.0% in the MD is carried out at a temperature of (the melting point of the polyolefin microporous membrane - 70°C) to (the melting point thereof - 30°C) in the step (E)” is recited in Lines 1-3, however it is unclear if (the melting point of the polyolefin microporous membrane - 70°C) to (the melting point thereof - 30°C) is positively claimed, thereby failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter (MPEP ). Therefore, the examiner will interpret the claim as --fine stretching of 1.0% to 5.0% in the MD is carried out at a temperature of the melting point of the polyolefin microporous membrane - 70°C to the melting point thereof - 30°C in the step (E)--.
Regarding claim 13, “a ratio in the MD in the step (B) is 6 to 10” is recited in Lines 1-2, however it is unclear as to what said ratio refers, thereby failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. The examiner will interpret the claim as --a stretch ratio in the MD in the step (B) is 6 to 10-- as disclosed in the instant specification in [0075]-[0077]
Withdrawn Specification Objections
The amendment(s) to the claim(s) filed August 1st, 2025 is acknowledged and the previous objection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishihara et al., (U.S. PGPub US 2019/0198836 A1), hereinafter Ishihara.
Regarding claim 1, Ishihara discloses a polyolefin microporous membrane having a membrane thickness of 1.0 µm to 17.0 µm (see e.g. Par. [0103] whereby a membrane thickness of the polyolefin microporous membrane is preferably 3 to 15 µm, which is a range within the claimed range of a membrane thickness of 1.0 µm to 17.0 µm, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.), also see e.g., [0048], [0103], [0121], [0149]-[0154]).
Ishihara further discloses the polyolefin microporous membrane is produced by the following steps:
extruding a polyolefin composition containing a polyolefin resin and a pore-forming material to form a gel-like sheet (see e.g. Par. [0038] and (a) an extrusion step of melt blending and extruding a resin composition containing a polyolefin resin and a pore-forming material, and (b) a sheet forming step of sheet forming the extrudate in said step (a) into a sheet, such that as in [0056]-[0057] said sheet is a gel-like sheet, etc., also see [0059]-[0061], [0149]-[0153]);
stretching the gel-like sheet biaxially to form a stretched sheet (see e.g. Par. [0062] whereby a gel-like sheet can be stretched by a tenter method, etc., such that as disclosed in [0063] as an example, stepwise biaxial stretching in which roll-stretching is performed in the MD direction and then stretching by a tenter method is carried out in the TD direction, etc., also see [0037], [0057], [0059], [0064], [0149]-[0153]);
extracting the pore-forming material from the stretched sheet to form a porous membrane (see e.g. Par. [0038] step (d) an extraction step of extracting the pore-forming material from the stretched sheet, etc., also see [0054], [0083], Examples 1-4, [0151]);
heat setting the porous membrane (see e.g. Par. [0083] the stretched sheet thus obtained is subjected to a conventional technique, etc., to wash and remove diluent, followed by drying, etc., which at least provides heat setting the porous membrane, such that the skilled artisan would appreciate drying said porous membrane at least provides said heat setting, lacking any further distinction thereof, also see [0152] with regards to heating said dried sheet, etc.); and
fine stretching in the MD (see e.g. Par. [0083] whereby the stretched sheet may be reheated in the dry-process stretching step (second stretching step), such a second stretching step is at least a fine stretching step, lacking any further distinction thereof as to said fine stretching, also see [0038], [0152], Examples 1-4).
Although Ishihara is silent as to the flexural modulus and basis weight-equivalent puncture strength, since Ishihara discloses an equivalent composition and claimed structure of the polyolefin microporous membrane, (also see said composition and/or structure as described by at least dependent Claims 7, 9 and 10 as discussed below and met by the prior art Ishihara), discloses the membrane thickness as discussed above, and further discloses in [0107] and Table 3 a pin puncture strength corresponding to 12 µm is 4000 mN (408 gf), etc. (see e.g. Examples 1-4 in Table 3 of pin puncture strength values) (also see e.g. Claim 3 below with regards to said puncture strength value(s) within the claimed range), properties and/or functions such as a flexural modulus of 0.3 (µgf×cm2)/cm)/µm3 to 1.5 (µgf×cm2)/cm)/µm3 which is a value obtained by dividing a flexural rigidity (gf×cm2/cm) in a longitudinal direction (MD) by the cube of the membrane thickness (µm); and a basis weight-equivalent puncture strength of 70 gf/(g/m2) to 160 gf/(g/m2), are presumed inherent, lacking any further chemical and/or structural distinction thereof as claimed. (see MPEP § 2112.01, II. - IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.”)
Furthermore, since Ishihara discloses an identical and/or substantially identical method for producing said polyolefin microporous membrane (see e.g. (A)-(E) as discussed above), properties and/or functions such as a flexural modulus of 0.3 (µgf×cm2)/cm)/µm3 to 1.5 (µgf×cm2)/cm)/µm3 which is a value obtained by dividing a flexural rigidity (gf×cm2/cm) in a longitudinal direction (MD) by the cube of the membrane thickness (µm); and a basis weight-equivalent puncture strength of 70 gf/(g/m2) to 160 gf/(g/m2), are presumed inherent, lacking any further chemical and/or structural distinction thereof as claimed. (see MPEP § 2112.01, I. Where the claimed and prior art products 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))
Regarding claim 2, Ishihara discloses the polyolefin microporous membrane as discussed above in claim 1. Although Ishihara is silent as to the basis weight-equivalent puncture strength is 80 gf/(g/m2) to 140 gf/(g/m2), as established in response to claim 1, since Ishihara discloses an equivalent composition and claimed structure of the polyolefin microporous membrane, (also see said composition and/or structure as described by at least dependent Claims 7, 9 and 10 as discussed below and met by the prior art Ishihara), discloses the membrane thickness as discussed above, and further discloses in [0107] and Table 3 a pin puncture strength corresponding to 12 µm is 4000 mN (408 gf), etc. (see e.g. Examples 1-4 in Table 3 of pin puncture strength values) (also see e.g. Claim 3 below with regards to said puncture strength value(s) within the claimed range), properties and/or functions such as the basis weight-equivalent puncture strength is 80 gf/(g/m2) to 140 gf/(g/m2) are presumed inherent lacking any further chemical and/or structural distinction thereof as claimed. (see MPEP § 2112.01, II. - IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.”)
Furthermore, since Ishihara discloses an identical and/or substantially identical method for producing said polyolefin microporous membrane (see e.g. (A)-(E) as discussed above), properties and/or functions such as a basis weight-equivalent puncture strength is 80 gf/(g/m2) to 140 gf/(g/m2), are presumed inherent, lacking any further chemical and/or structural distinction thereof as claimed. (see MPEP § 2112.01, I. Where the claimed and prior art products 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))
Regarding claim 3, Ishihara discloses the polyolefin microporous membrane as discussed above in claim 1. Ishihara further discloses the pin puncture strength as discussed above in claim 1, whereby as disclosed in [0107] and Table 3 the pin puncture strength corresponding to 12 µm is 4000 mN (408 gf), etc. (see e.g. Examples 1-4 in Table 3 of pin puncture strength values within the claimed range), which is/are value(s) within the claimed range of a puncture strength of 300 gf to 950 gf, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.).
Regarding claim 4, Ishihara discloses the polyolefin microporous membrane as discussed above in claim 1. Ishihara further discloses in [0108] the tensile rupture strength is preferably 180 MPa or more either in the MD direction and in the TD direction, etc., whereby as shown in Table 3 Example 1, for example, the tensile rupture strength is 256/219 MPa for MD/TD, which at least provides values of 2610 kgf/cm2 and 2233 kgf/cm2 (i.e., at a ratio of 1.16 for MD/TD), thereby providing tensile strength values within the claimed range of 1000 kgf/cm2 or greater in each of the MD and TD, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.).
Regarding claim 5, Ishihara discloses the polyolefin microporous membrane as discussed above in claim 1. Ishihara further discloses in [0108] the tensile rupture strength is preferably 180 MPa or more either in the MD direction and in the TD direction, etc., whereby as shown in Table 3 Example 1, for example, the tensile rupture strength is 256/219 MPa for MD/TD, which at least provides values of 2610 kgf/cm2 and 2233 kgf/cm2 (i.e., at a ratio of 1.16 for MD/TD), thereby providing a MD/TD tensile strength ratio within the claimed range of a ratio (MD/TD tensile strength ratio) of the tensile strength in the MD to the tensile strength in the TD is 0.8 to 1.20, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.).
Regarding claim 6, Ishihara discloses the polyolefin microporous membrane as discussed above in claim 1. Ishihara further discloses in Table 3 Examples 1-4 SDT (i.e., shutdown temperature) ranging from 138.2°C to 139.2°C, which are values within the claimed range of a shutdown temperature of 125°C to 150°C, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.). (also see [0075]-[0077], [0084]-[0087], [0111]).
Regarding claim 7, Ishihara discloses the polyolefin microporous membrane as discussed above in claim 1. Ishihara further discloses (see e.g. Table 3 (Examples 1-4)) values of the air resistance of 130 to 240 sec/100 cm3 (also see [0105]), which are values within the claimed range of an air permeability of 30 sec/100 cm3 to 250 sec/100 cm3, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.).
Regarding claim 8, Ishihara discloses the polyolefin microporous membrane as discussed above in claim 1. Although Ishihara is silent as to a withstand voltage per unit membrane thickness of 0.130 kV/µm or greater, as established in response to claim 1, since Ishihara discloses an equivalent composition and claimed structure of the polyolefin microporous membrane, (also see said composition and/or structure as described by at least dependent Claims 7, 9 and 10 as discussed above and/or below and met by the prior art Ishihara), discloses the membrane thickness as discussed above, etc., properties and/or functions such as a withstand voltage per unit membrane thickness of 0.130 kV/µm or greater are presumed inherent lacking any further chemical and/or structural distinction thereof as claimed. (see MPEP § 2112.01, II. - IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.”)
Furthermore, since Ishihara discloses an identical and/or substantially identical method for producing said polyolefin microporous membrane (see e.g. (A)-(E) as discussed above), properties and/or functions such as a withstand voltage per unit membrane thickness of 0.130 kV/µm or greater, are presumed inherent, lacking any further chemical and/or structural distinction thereof as claimed. (see MPEP § 2112.01, I. Where the claimed and prior art products 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))
Regarding claim 9, Ishihara discloses the polyolefin microporous membrane as discussed above in claim 1. Ishihara further discloses (see e.g. Table 3 (Examples 1-4)) values of the average pore size of 27.5 to 39 nm (also see [0104]), which are values within the claimed range of an average pore size of 0.010 µm to 0.080 µm, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.).
Regarding claim 10, Ishihara discloses the polyolefin microporous membrane as discussed above in claim 1. Ishihara further discloses (see e.g. Table 1 (Examples 1-4)) a content proportion of high density polyethylene from 70 to 80 % (also see [0051]), which are values within the claimed range of a proportion of polyethylene is 50% by weight to 100% by weight and a proportion of polypropylene is 0% by weight to 20% by weight, such that since no polypropylene is provided that this is at least provides 0 %, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara as applied to claims 1 above.
Regarding claim 13, Ishihara discloses the polyolefin microporous membrane as discussed above in claim 1, and further discloses step (B) as discussed above in claim 1. Ishihara further teaches in [0064] the stretching magnification before the extraction of the diluent varies depending on the thickness of the gel-like sheet, but the MD stretching (MDO) by 5.0 times or more and 11.0 times or less is preferred, etc., which at least provides a stretch ratio range that overlaps and/or encompasses the claimed range of a stretch ratio in the MD in the step (B) is 6 to 10, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Toyota et al. (WO 2019/163935 A1 and using U.S. PGPub US 2021/0115206 A1 as Machine Translation of English version), hereinafter Toyota.
Regarding claim 11, Ishihara discloses the polyolefin microporous membrane including step (E) as discussed above in claim 1.
However, Ishihara appears silent as to a fine stretching of 1.0% to 5.0% in the MD is carried out at a temperature of the melting point of the polyolefin microporous membrane - 70°C to the melting point thereof - 30°C in the step (E).
Toyota teaches a porous polyolefin film (Title). Toyota further teaches in [0086]-[0089] the dried microporous film may be stretched again (re-drawn), etc., which is commensurate in scope with step (E) as discussed in Ishihara. Toyota further teaches the temperature during re-drawing is preferably not more than the melting point of the polyolefin composition, more preferably a temperature of (Tcd-20°C) to the melting point, and specifically, the temperature for the polyethylene composition is preferably 70 to 135°C, etc. Toyota further teaches in [0046] a film melting point is preferably 133°C or higher in view of the balance between shutdown temperature and porosity, such that a film melting point of 133°C or higher provides excellent shutdown property as well as excellent porosity, and the film melting point is preferably 137°C or lower, etc., such that a film melting point of 137°C or lower will make it easier to keep the balance between the porosity and shutdown temperature, and can improve the relationship between shutdown temperature and porosity, etc. Therefore, since Toyota teaches re-drawing is preferably not more than the melting point of the polyolefin composition, whereby specifically, the temperature for the polyethylene composition is preferably 70 to 135°C, etc., and further teaches a film melting point is preferably 133°C or higher and a film melting point of 137°C or lower, this at least provides a range (i.e., 137°C - 70°C to 133°C - 135°C = 67°C to -2°C) fine stretching is carried out at a temperature of the melting point of the polyolefin microporous membrane - 70°C to the melting point thereof - 30°C in the step (E), thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
Toyota further teaches in [0089] the draw ratio during re-drawing in uniaxial stretching is preferably 1.01 to 1.6 in either the MD or the TD, etc., which at least provides a range of percentages (i.e., fine stretching from 1% to 60%) that overlaps and/or encompasses the claimed range of a fine stretching of 1.0% to 5.0% in the MD, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.). Toyota further teaches in [0089] stretching to a draw ratio within the above range can increase the porosity and the permeability, while stretching to a draw ratio of not less than 1.6 causes a film to be more oriented and to increase the melting point and the shutdown temperature.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Ishihara with the teachings of Toyota, whereby the polyolefin microporous membrane including step (E) as disclosed by Ishihara further includes the fine stretching from 1% to 60% and the fine stretching is carried out at a temperature range as discussed above as taught by Toyota so as to increase the porosity and the permeability, increase the melting point and the shutdown temperature, as well as balance between the porosity and shutdown temperature, so as to improve the relationship between shutdown temperature and porosity.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Kikuchi et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2011/0166243 A1), hereinafter Kikuchi, and further in view of Mitsuoka et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2015/0030907 A1), hereinafter Mitsuoka.
Regarding claim 12, Ishihara discloses the polyolefin microporous membrane including step (D) as discussed above in claim 1.
However, Ishihara is silent as to the step (D) includes carrying out a stretching operation and a relaxation operation each at least once, a stretching strain rate in the step (D) is 11%/sec or less, and a relaxation strain rate in the step (D) is 10%/sec or less.
Kikuchi teaches a microporous film and method for producing the same (Title). Kikuchi further teaches in [0080] a strain rate according to stretch in the above-mentioned hot stretching step (D) is preferably 0.10 to 1.00/sec, etc., which provides a range that is within the claimed range of a stretching strain rate in the step (D) is 11%/sec or less, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.). Kikuchi further teaches in [0082] from the viewpoint of physical properties and application demanded of the microporous film according to the present embodiment, etc., by stretching at not less than two stage different temperatures, the balance between permeability and thermal shrinkage of the microporous film finally obtained is further improved.
Kikuchi further teaches in [0086] the method for producing a microporous film according to the present embodiment further comprises thermal relaxation step of thermally relaxing the film obtained at the above-mentioned step (D), etc., whereby thermal relaxation is a method for thermally shrinking the length of the stretched
film at the step (D) so that the length thereof may be shortened by approximately 5 to 50% in advance in order to prevent shrinkage in the stretch direction of the microporous film due to residual stress, thereby providing that the microporous film having a good thermal shrinkage rate tends to be obtained by this thermal relaxation, such that the proportion to shorten the length (5 to 50%) is referred to as a relaxation rate, and in the case where a roll-type stretching apparatus is used, the relaxation rate can be calculated from a difference of the rotational speed between rolls in which thermal relaxation is performed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Ishihara with the teachings of Kikuchi, whereby the polyolefin microporous membrane including step (D) as disclosed by Ishihara further includes carrying out a stretching operation and a relaxation operation each at least once, and a stretching strain rate in the step (D) is 11%/sec or less as discussed above and taught by Kikuchi so as to provide a balance between permeability and thermal shrinkage of the microporous film finally obtained that is further improved, as well as providing that the microporous film having a good thermal shrinkage rate tends to be obtained by this thermal relaxation.
However, and as discussed above, the combined teachings of Ichihara and Kikuchi are silent as to a relaxation strain rate in the step (D) is 10%/sec or less.
Mitsuoka teaches a polyethylene microporous membrane and process for manufacturing the same (Title). Mitsuoka further teaches in Table 2 a longitudinal relaxation speed (%/sec) of 0.8 (see e.g. Examples 1-7), which at least provides a value within the claimed range of a relaxation strain rate in the step (D) is 10%/sec or less, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.). Mitsuoka further teaches in [0092] in the process for producing the polyethylene microporous membrane of the present invention, it is important to heat-relax the polyethylene microporous membrane at least in the longitudinal direction, such that heat-relaxing the polyethylene microporous membrane of the present invention at least in the longitudinal direction can reduce the residual stress in the longitudinal direction that remains in the microporous membrane after stretching, reduce the waviness width, and provide good planarity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the combined teachings of Ishihara and Kikuchi further with the teachings of Mitsuoka, whereby the polyolefin microporous membrane including step (D) as disclosed by Ishihara, and the stretching and relaxation operation(s) as disclosed by the combined teachings of Ishihara and Kikuchi further includes a relaxation strain rate (i.e., at least longitudinal relaxation speed as discussed above) in the step (D) is 10%/sec or less so as to reduce the residual stress in the longitudinal direction that remains in the microporous membrane after stretching, reduce the waviness width, and provide good planarity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 7-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of Yukiko have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Therefore, in light of the amendments to the claims, a new grounds of rejection 35 U.S.C. 102 is made in view of Ishihara for claims 1-10. See the above rejection of record for the claims that depend therefrom.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Inagaki et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2011/0311878 A1) discloses a polyolefin microporous membrane and separator for lithium ion secondary battery (Title), whereby as disclosed in [0076] the relaxation operation refers to a shrinking operation performed on the MD and/or the TD of the membrane at a predetermined temperature and a predetermined relaxation rate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA PATRICK MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)272-2742. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Tong Guo can be reached on (571) 272-3066. 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.
/JOSHUA P MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/TONG GUO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723