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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/09/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-12 and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20150210892 to Tsuchiya et al. (hereinafter Tsuchiya).
With respect to claim 1, Tsuchiya teaches a polishing composition which is
mainly used in an application for polishing a substrate, preferably in an application for performing final polishing on a substrate, wherein the polishing composition comprising a water-soluble polymer, wherein more than one water-soluble polymer may be used, wherein at least one water-soluble polymer contains at least a vinyl alcohol unit and a vinyl acetate unit, and said units may be used in a homopolymer or a copolymer, and wherein the water-soluble polymer is saponified at a saponification degree of 80 mol% or greater or 100 mol% or less (abstract, [0023], [0037]).
According to the original disclosure of the present Application under examination, the preferred water-soluble polymer would be the one which would be a saponified product of a vinyl ester-based polymer comprising a fatty acid vinyl ester such as vinyl acetate, which when the saponification value is, for example, 85-90 mol%, the viscosity of a 4% aqueous solution of the vinyl alcohol-based resin at 20°C is 180 mPa.s or more (see specification of the present Application under examination, pages 6-7 and 13). In particular, the specification of the present Application under examination, in page 13, lines 1-13, discloses "In particular, when the saponification value of the vinyl alcohol-based resin (A) is 98.0 mol% or more (e.g., 98.0 to 99.9 mol%), the viscosity of a 4% aqueous solution of the vinyl alcohol-based resin (A) at 20°C is, for example, 40 mPa.s or more (e.g., 50 mPa.s or more), and preferably 60 mPa.s or more (e.g., 70 mPa.s or more). When the saponification value of the vinyl alcohol-based resin (A) is about 88 mol% (e.g., 85 to 90 mol%), the viscosity of a 4% aqueous solution of the vinyl alcohol-based resin (A) 10 at 20°C is, for example, 180 mPa.s or more (e.g., 190 mPa.s or more), preferably 200 mPa.s or more (e.g., 210 mPa.s or more), and more preferably 220 mPa.s or more (e.g., 230 mPa.s or more)."
Therefore, because the vinyl alcohol-based resin of the reference is the preferred type as disclosed by the original specification of the present Application under examination and because the reference discloses substantially overlapping, if not an anticipatory, range of saponification for the polymer whose structure is the same as the preferred polymer of the present Application under examination, the disclosure of the reference is seen to render the claimed viscosity under the claimed condition obvious. This is, in particular, because according to the original specification of the present Application under examination, when the saponification value of the vinyl alcohol-based resin (A) is about 88 mol% (e.g., 85 to 90 mol%), the viscosity of a 4% aqueous solution of the vinyl alcohol-based resin (A) 10 at 20°C is, for example, 180 mPa.s or more (e.g., 190 mPa.s or more), preferably 200 mPa.s or more (e.g., 210 mPa.s or more), and more preferably 220 mPa.s or more (e.g., 230 mPa.s or more).
With respect to claim 3, Tsuchiya teaches the presence/use of abrasive grains in the polishing composition ([0051]-[0052]).
With respect to claim 4, Tsuchiya teaches abrasive grains can be of inorganic
material such as silica ([0052] and [0060]).
With respect to claim 5, Tsuchiya is silent as to the presence of any acid group in the monomers of the water-soluble polymers ([0016]-[0050]); thus, the reference is taken to render the claim obvious. This is because "less" than 0.1 mol% is a range inclusive of zero.
With respect to claim 6, Tsuchiya is directed a specific pH range of 8.0 or greater ([0069]), and discloses the use of basic compound in their composition ([0062]-[0063]). Thus, the use of a pH adjuster is inevitable in the composition of Tsuchiya.
With respect to claim 7, Tsuchiya teaches abrasive grains of inorganic material such as silica in their composition ([0052] and [0060]), and wherein basic compounds are used ([0062]-[0063]). The reference, additionally, is directed to maintaining the pH in a specific range of 8.0 or greater ([0069]). Thus, the reference is taken to render the presence/use of a pH adjuster, of basic compound, obvious.
With respect to claim 8, Tsuchiya teaches the use of surfactants as well ([0072]-
[0076]).
With respect to claim 8, Tsuchiya teaches the use of surfactants as well ([0072]-[0076]).
With respect to claim 9, Tsuchiya teaches the use of surfactants such as
polyoxyethylene alkyl ether ([0074]-[0075]).
With respect to claim 10, Tsuchiya teaches the use of at least a surfactant
([0072]-[0076]). Moreover, the reference teaches the concentration of the water-soluble polymer in the composition is 0.002% by mass or greater, and even 0.01% by mass or greater ([0050]). Although the reference may not literally disclose a mass ratio of the water-soluble polymer and the surfactant to be 1:0.01 to 1:200, considering the fact that surfactant is used due to its beneficial impact on the polishing composition and polished surface ([0072]), an optimum or workable range of the concentration of a surfactant can be obtained through routine experimentation and is expected to have, at least, some overlapping with the claimed range of 1:0.01 to 1:200, not only because of how wide the claimed range is, but also because the concentration of a surfactant may depend on the expected pH, which is adjusted using a basic compound, and wherein the use of basic compound would require the use of surfactant. Thus, depending on the expected pH, the concentration of the surfactant can be modified, and thus, is expected to have at least some overlapping with the claimed range.
MPEP 2144.05 Il A states "Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 11, Tsuchiya teaches the use of water in their composition ([0015]). Moreover, the reference teaches the concentration of the water-soluble polymer in the composition is 0.002% by mass or greater, and even 0.01% by mass or greater ([0050]) which would render the claimed concentration of "1 ppm or more" for the water-soluble polymer obvious due to overlapping ranges. MPEP 2144.05 states "In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists." In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to claim 12, Tsuchiya teaches the use of water in their composition ([0015]). Additionally, the reference teaches the use of 0.05% by mass or greater of abrasive grains ([0059]); thus, although there is no literal disclosure of a "solid content" for the disclosed composition, the fact that the concentration of abrasive grains is more than 0.01 mass%, as claimed, renders the solid content of the claimed polishing composition is obvious because at least the abrasive grains are part of the solid concentration.
With respect to claim 18, Tsuchiya discloses a pH of 8.0 or greater for the
polishing composition ([0069]) which shares an end point with the claimed range of 6.0 to 8.0. MPEP 2144.05 states "In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists." In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to claim 19, considering the fact that the reference renders the
claimed polishing composition obvious, and the fact that the polishing composition of Tsuchiya is, also, used on a semiconductor substrate, it is expected of the substrate onto which the polishing composition has been used to comprise a size of less than 0.030 nm as evaluated by atomic force microscopy or AFM.
Nevertheless, and assuming the above is not found persuasive, it is noted that said claim further limits a substrate, or workpiece, onto which the polishing composition has been used/applied. Thus, claim 19 does not further limit the claimed polishing composition under examination, and as such, it is considered rejected with claim 1.
With respect to claim 20, Tsuchiya teaches a polishing composition which is
mainly used in an application for polishing a substrate, preferably in an application for performing final polishing on a substrate, wherein the polishing composition comprising a water-soluble polymer, wherein more than one water-soluble polymer may be used, wherein at least one water-soluble polymer contains at least a vinyl alcohol unit and a vinyl acetate unit, and said units may be used in a homopolymer or a copolymer, and wherein the water-soluble polymer is saponified at a saponification degree of 80 mol% or greater or 100 mol% or less (abstract, [0023], [0037]).
According to the original disclosure of the present Application under examination, the preferred water-soluble polymer would be the one which would be a saponified product of a vinyl ester-based polymer comprising a fatty acid vinyl ester such as vinyl acetate, which when the saponification value is, for example, 85-90 mol%, the viscosity of a 4% aqueous solution of the vinyl alcohol-based resin at 20°C is 180 mPa.s or more (see specification of the present Application under examination, pages 6-7 and 13). In particular, the specification of the present Application under examination, in page 13, lines 1-13, discloses "In particular, when the saponification value of the vinyl alcohol-based resin (A) is 98.0 mol% or more (e.g., 98.0 to 99.9 mol%), the viscosity of a 4% aqueous solution of the vinyl alcohol-based resin (A) at 20°C is, for example, 40 mPa.s or more (e.g., 50 mPa.s or more), and preferably 60 mPa.s or more (e.g., 70 mPa.s or more). When the saponification value of the vinyl alcohol-based resin (A) is about 88 mol% (e.g., 85 to 90 mol%), the viscosity of a 4% aqueous solution of the vinyl alcohol-based resin (A) 10 at 20°C is, for example, 180 mPa.s or more (e.g., 190 mPa.s or more), preferably 200 mPa.s or more (e.g., 210 mPa.s or more), and more preferably 220 mPa.s or more (e.g., 230 mPa.s or more)."
Therefore, because the vinyl alcohol-based resin of the reference is the preferred type of polymer as disclosed by the original specification of the present Application under examination and because the reference discloses substantially overlapping, if not an anticipatory, range of saponification for the polymer whose structure is the same as the preferred polymer of the present Application under examination, the disclosure of the reference is seen to render the claimed viscosity under the claimed condition obvious. This is, in particular, because according to the original specification of the present Application under examination, when the saponification value of the vinyl alcohol-based resin (A) is about 88 mol% (e.g., 85 to 90 mol%), the viscosity of a 4% aqueous solution of the vinyl alcohol-based resin (A) 10 at 20°C is, for example, 180 mPa.s or more (e.g., 190 mPa.s or more), preferably 200 mPa.s or more (e.g., 210 mPa.s or more), and more preferably 220 mPa.s or more (e.g., 230 mPa.s or more).
With respect to claim 21, Tsuchiya teaches a polishing composition which is
mainly used in an application for polishing a substrate, preferably in an application for performing final polishing on a substrate, wherein the polishing composition comprising surfactants ([0072]-[0076]) and a water-soluble polymer, wherein more than one water-soluble polymer may be used, wherein at least one water-soluble polymer contains at least a vinyl alcohol unit and a vinyl acetate unit, and said units may be used in a homopolymer or a copolymer, and wherein the water-soluble polymer is saponified at a saponification degree of 80 mol% or greater or 100 mol% or less (abstract, [0023], [0037]).
According to the original disclosure of the present Application under examination, the preferred water-soluble polymer would be the one which would be a saponified product of a vinyl ester-based polymer comprising a fatty acid vinyl ester such as vinyl acetate, which when the saponification value is, for example, 85-90 mol%, the viscosity of a 4% aqueous solution of the vinyl alcohol-based resin at 20°C is 180 mPa.s or more (see specification of the present Application under examination, pages 6-7 and 13). In particular, the specification of the present Application under examination, in page 13, lines 1-13, discloses "In particular, when the saponification value of the vinyl alcohol-based resin (A) is 98.0 mol% or more (e.g., 98.0 to 99.9 mol%), the viscosity of a 4% aqueous solution of the vinyl alcohol-based resin (A) at 20°C is, for example, 40 mPa.s or more (e.g., 50 mPa.s or more), and preferably 60 mPa.s or more (e.g., 70 mPa.s or more). When the saponification value of the vinyl alcohol-based resin (A) is about 88 mol% (e.g., 85 to 90 mol%), the viscosity of a 4% aqueous solution of the vinyl alcohol-based resin (A) 10 at 20°C is, for example, 180 mPa.s or more (e.g., 190 mPa.s or more), preferably 200 mPa.s or more (e.g., 210 mPa.s or more), and more preferably 220 mPa.s or more (e.g., 230 mPa.s or more)."
Therefore, because the vinyl alcohol-based resin of the reference is the preferred type of polymer as disclosed by the original specification of the present Application under examination and because the reference discloses substantially overlapping, if not an anticipatory, range of saponification for the polymer whose structure is the same as the preferred polymer of the present Application under examination, the disclosure of the reference is seen to render the claimed viscosity under the claimed condition obvious. This is, in particular, because according to the original specification of the present Application under examination, when the saponification value of the vinyl alcohol-based resin (A) is about 88 mol% (e.g., 85 to 90 mol%), the viscosity of a 4% aqueous solution of the vinyl alcohol-based resin (A) 10 at 20°C is, for example, 40 mPa.s or more (e.g., 50 mPa.s or more), and preferably 60 mPa.s or more (e.g., 70 mPa.s or more).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has asserted the Examiner considers the viscosity of a 4% aqueous solution of a vinyl alcohol-based resin is determined solely by molecular weight, i.e. Mw (Remarks, page 5). Applicant has, further, asserted the viscosity of a 4% aqueous solution of a vinyl alcohol-based resin is not determined solely by Mw, but that it additionally relates to the other properties especially saponification value; Applicant then concluded a person having ordinary skill in the art could not have expected or predicted the viscosity of a 4% aqueous solution of a vinyl alcohol-based resin based on the teaching of Tsuchiya (Remarks, pages 5 and 6).
The Examiner disagrees, and respectfully, submits that it was Applicant’s assertion in the Response After Final Action filed on 12/08/2025 that the higher the molecular weight of polyvinyl alcohol, the higher the viscosity of a 4% aqueous solution (see Remarks filed 12/08/2025, in page 6). The response in the Advisory action mailed on 12/15/2025 was only responding to this assertion by Applicant.
In fact, the Final rejection filed on 09/08/2025 clearly shows that the viscosity was rejected because the same compounds having substantially similar saponification value was taught by the reference (see Final rejection, pages 3-4 for details).
Applicant has asserted Tsuchiya does not disclose the saponification value for a PVA having a Mw of 300,000 in paragraph [0031] of the reference (Remarks, page 6). Additionally, Applicant has asserted the only PVA with saponification values are PVA1 and PVA2 having a Mw of 60,000. Applicant, then concluded, that as a result a person having ordinary skill in the art could not have predicted the viscosity of a 4% aqueous solution of a PVA having a Mw of 300,000 (Remarks, page 6).
The Examiner, respectfully, submits that the rejection of the claims is an obviousness rejection, not an anticipatory one because the reference does not teach one specific embodiment anticipating the claimed invention; the reference renders the claimed language “obvious”. Paragraph [0031] of Tsuchiya teaches weight average molecular weight of the water-soluble polymer C to be preferably 300,000 or less; a closer look at the reference reveals the fact that in paragraph [0026], the reference teaches at least one water-soluble polymer selected from polyvinyl alcohol and a polymer having a polyvinyl alcohol structure, which is referred to as “water-soluble polymer C”, are used. Paragraph [0037] of Tsuchiya taches examples of water-soluble polymer C include polyvinyl alcohol and a polymer containing at least a vinyl alcohol unit, wherein an example of the water-soluble polymer C includes a water-soluble polymer formed by partially saponifying a homopolymer or a copolymer of “vinyl acetate”, and wherein the partially saponified polyvinyl alcohol if formed by partially saponifying a homopolymer of a vinyl acetate is the preferred one. The same paragraph, also, discloses that such a “partially saponified polyvinyl alcohol is a water-soluble polymer composed of a vinyl alcohol unit and a vinyl acetate unit and its saponification degree is preferably 50 mol% or greater, further preferably 60 mol% or greater, for example 65 mol% or greater, further preferably 70 mol% or greater, and even further preferably 80 mol% or greater. The saponification degree of the polyvinyl alcohol is theoretically 100% or less”.
Therefore, and as detailed out in the Final rejection mailed out on 09/08/2025 and repeated above, Tsuchiya teaches the use of at least one water-soluble polymer containing at least a vinyl alcohol unit and a vinyl acetate unit, and said units be used in a homopolymer or a copolymer, and wherein the water-soluble polymer is saponified at a saponification degree of 80 mol% or greater, or 100 mol% or less, which fully overlaps the claimed saponification value.
Moreover, as pointed out in the Final rejection mailed out on 09/08/2025 and repeated above, the present Application under examination, discloses the preferred water-soluble polymer to be the one which would be a saponified product of a vinyl ester-based polymer comprising a fatty acid vinyl ester such as vinyl acetate, which is taught by the reference, which, as disclosed in the specification of the present Application under examination, has a saponification value of, for example, 85-90 mol%, and a viscosity of 180 mPa.s at 20°C for a 4% aqueous solution of the vinyl alcohol-based resin (see specification of the present Application under examination, pages 6-7 and 13). Additionally, in page 13, the specification specifically discloses “In particular, when the saponification value of the vinyl alcohol-based resin (A) is 98.0 mol% or more (e.g., 98.0 to 99.9 mol%), the viscosity of a 4% aqueous solution of the vinyl alcohol-based resin (A) at 20°C is, for example, 40 mPa.s or more (e.g., 50 mPa.s or more), and preferably 60 mPa.s or more (e.g., 70 mPa.s or more). When the saponification value of the vinyl alcohol-based resin (A) is about 88 mol% (e.g., 85 to 90 mol%), the viscosity of a 4% aqueous solution of the vinyl alcohol-based resin (A) 10 at 20°C is, for example, 180 mPa.s or more (e.g., 190 mPa.s or more), preferably 200 mPa.s or more (e.g., 210 mPa.s or more), and more preferably 220 mPa.s or more (e.g., 230 mPa.s or more)."
Therefore, the water-soluble polymer of Tsuchiya which is a vinyl alcohol based, in particular having a vinyl acetate base, is expected to have the claimed viscosity of 15 mPa.s or more, as claimed previously, and 200 mPa.s or more, as currently claimed in claim 1 and new claims.
In short, Tsuchiya teaches Applicant’s preferred water-soluble polymer, at substantially overlapping, if not anticipatory, range for the saponification value, and based on the specification of the present Application under examination, such a polymer with such saponification value, meet the claimed viscosity.
Applicant has referred to two Examples of Tsuchiya, namely Examples 7 and 10, and asserted the saponification values for PVA1 and PVA2 are 80 and 98 or more, respectively for Mw of 60,000 (see Remarks, page 6). Applicant has, then referred back to a table provided in the Response After Final Action filed on 12/08/2025 in page 7 of said response; in this table, as argued by Applicant to have been made based off of the present Application under examination showing Mw, Mn, Mw/Mn, saponification value, and viscosity at 4%, summarized in a Table provided in both the Response After Final Action and the latest response filed on 02/09/2026. Applicant has asserted that the PVA products of JP-10, JP-13, and VC-13 are similar wot PVA1 and PVA2 of Tsuchiya (Remarks, page 6). Applicant has, then, asserted that this table shows the higher the saponification value, the higher the viscosity of a 4% aqueous solution (Remarks, page 7). Applicant has asserted the estimated viscosity of a 4% aqueous solution at 20˚C for PVA1 is about 10-13 mPa.s and for PVA2 is about 13-16 mPa.s for a saponification value of 98mol% (Remarks, page 7).
The Examiner, respectfully, submits that Applicant has chosen to rely on specific embodiments of Tsuchiya, despite the fact that the rejection did not rely on those examples, and despite the fact that the teachings of Tsuchiya (Tsuchiya, [0023]-[0031], and [0037]) teaches the preferred water-soluble polymer of the present Application under examination having a substantially overlapping, if not, anticipatory range for the saponification value, which according to the specification of the present Application under examination, is expected to meet the viscosity limitation.
Applicant has asserted that new claim 21 recites an additionally component, namely a surfactant from claim 8, and has asserted that the combination of surfactant and the water-soluble polymer is effective in reducing AFM roughness, as shown by comparison of Example 1 to Example 2, and the comparison of Example 6 to Example 7 in Table 1 of the specification (Remarks, page 7). Moreover, Applicant has asserted Examples 1 and 6 do not further include a surfactant, whereas Examples 2 and 7 include a copolymer having an EO-PO structure added (Remarks, page 8). Applicant has then compared the results of AFM for the two sets, and concluded that Examples 2 and 7 have superior AFM roughness evaluation (Remarks, page 8). Applicant has, then, asserted Tsuchiya does not describe AFM roughness at all, and the reduction in AFM of the composition of claim 21 is completely unexpected (Remarks, page 8). In addition, Applicant has asserted when more data showing that when the same procedure according to Example 7 was carried out, except with a PVA having % aqueous solution viscosity of 2.8 mPa.s at 20˚C and a saponification of 99.3 mol% as the water-soluble polymer, the valuation results of both AFM roughness and haze were inferior, and concluded that these results further demonstrate the particularly excellent effects of the composition of claim 21 (Remarks, page 8).
The Examiner, respectfully, submits that Tsuchiya needs not to disclose anything about any AFM roughness because this property is not part of the claimed language of independent claims. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., reduction of AFM roughness as a result of adding surfactant) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Nevertheless, and assuming such a property would be added to the language of the independent claims, as it is the recitation of the dependent claim 19, considering the fact that Tsuchiya reads on the claimed language, and in particular, renders the claimed polishing composition obvious, as presented in the Final rejection mailed out on 09/082025 and repeated above, any property/characteristics attributed to the claimed polishing composition is expected to follow from the composition of the reference because substantially similar compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties/characteristics.
Additionally, such a limitation as shown in the rejection of dependent claim 19, would not further limit the claimed “composition” under examination because the claimed AFM measures the effect on a polished substrate; it does not further limit the composition under examination.
Tsuchiya teaches the use of surfactants in paragraphs [0072]-[0076].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEGAH PARVINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2639. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, AMBER ORLANDO can be reached at 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PEGAH PARVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731