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 .
1) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8-7-25 has been entered. Applicant’s supplemental amendment filed 11-7-25 has also been entered.
2) 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.
3) 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.
4) Claim 15-18 and 20-28 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.
In claim 15 line 56, there is no antecedent basis for “the first half elements” and “the second half elements” and, as such the scope of claim 15 is ambiguous. In claim 15 line 56, it is suggested to change “of the first half elements or the second half elements” to --of the half elements--.
In claim 15, the description at lines 64-65 is indefinite in view of the remainder of claim 15. First: It appears that “each trailing corner” on line 64 should be --each leading corner-- since lines 32-35 of claim 15, lines 54-56 and lines 75-78 of claim 15 describe the leading edge corners (instead of the trailing edge corners) having chamfers. In claim 15 line 64, therefore, it is suggested to change “each trailing corner” to --each leading corner--. Second: In claim 15 lines 64-65, there is no antecedent basis for “the first half elements” and “the second half elements” and, as such the scope of claim 15 is ambiguous. In claim 15 lines 64-65, it is suggested to delete --of the first half elements or the second half elements--.
Claim 27 is ambiguous since the formula for SDmoy describes “SDA” and “SDB”, but claim 27 fails to define “SDA” and “SDB”.
5) 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.
6) Claims 15-18, 20-21 and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosnier et al (US 2018/0065416) in view of Guichon #1 (US 2012/0267021), Europe 757 (EP 739757), Guichon #2 (US 2014/0230980) and Korea 811 (KR 2014-0025811).
Mosnier et al discloses a pneumatic tire [FIGURE 5] having a directional tread pattern comprising blocks 5 separated by grooves 9 [FIGURE 1]. Each block 5 comprises sipes 10, 11, 12. The height H of the blocks is 6 to 8 mm [paragraph 10]. Since the grooves define the blocks, depth of the grooves is 6 to 8 mm. The sipes have a width = 0.1 to 2 mm [paragraph 45]. The sipes have a depth = 85 to 105% of the depth of the grooves [paragraph 64]. Each block 5 extends from a tread edge 3 to a center 4 [FIGURE 1]. The blocks of the tread are made up of an elastomer composition based on a diene elastomer, a plasticizing system and an interlinking system, wherein the elastomer composition has a glass transition temperature of between −40° C. and −15° C and a shear modulus G* measured at 60° C. of between 0.5 MPa and 1.1 MPa [paragraph 71]. This composition allows use under wintery conditions with very cold temperatures without deterioration of performance [paragraph 33]. The tire is particularly advantageous on snow covered and/or icy ground [paragraph 35]. Mosnier et al’s FIGURE 1 is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
578
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In claim 15, each half element reads on one of the blocks 5. Each tread pattern element reads on two of the blocks 5 (one block on one side of the tread and another block on the other side of the tread). As can be seen from Mosnier et al’s FIGURE 1, the tread pattern elements (MA, MB) comprise two half-elements including first half elements (MA1, MA2) [blocks 5] and second half elements (MB1, MB2) [blocks 5], which are symmetric with respect to an equatorial plane passing through the center of the tread and are offset from one another in the circumferential direction by a distance. As to each half element being curved, Mosnier et al teaches that each block may have a curved shape [paragraph 51]. As to radial height H being at least equal to 6 mm and at most equal to a radial height Hmax of the tread, Mosnier et al teaches that each block of the tread has a height H = 6 to 8 mm [FIGURE 3, paragraph 10]. An annotated copy of FIGURE 1 of Mosnier et al is provided below:
PNG
media_image2.png
704
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the above MARKED UP FIGURE, the markings were added by examiner to facilitate discussion of Mosnier et al. In the MARKED UP FIGURE, “1” is a first lateral portion in which grooves are inclined at an angle θ1, “2” is a second central portion in which grooves are inclined at an angle θ2, “3” is a third intermediate portion in which grooves are inclined at an angle θ3. The grooves have leading faces and trailing faces [FIGURE 3 of Mosnier et al]. As can be seen from FIGURE 1, axial width of the second central portion 2 is about the same as axial width of the first lateral portion 1. As can also be seen from FIGURES 1 and 3, angle θ1 (grooves first lateral portion) with respect to circumferential direction is greater than angle θ3 (grooves third intermediate portion) with respect to circumferential direction and angle θ3 (grooves third intermediate portion) with respect to circumferential direction is greater than angle θ2 (grooves second central portion) with respect to circumferential direction. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). Mosnier et al teaches providing the blocks 5 separated by grooves 9 for evacuating water such that each block has a central zone (second central portion) inclined at angle β1 = 35-65 degrees with respect to axial direction (angle =
25-55 degrees with respect to circumferential direction), an intermediate zone (third intermediate portion) inclined at an angle β2 with respect to the axial direction and an edge zone (first lateral portion) inclined at angle β3 = 0-10 degrees with respect to axial direction (angle = 80-90 degrees with respect to circumferential direction) to reduce risk of stones being trapped in the grooves [FIGURE 1, paragraphs 7-8, 55-56]. Mosnier et al does not describe pitch ratios, chamfer ratios and sipe density.
As to claim 15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Mosnier et al’s tire such that each half element (MA1, MB1) and a respective symmetric counterpart (MA2, MB2) of the each half element being curved, in an axial direction, from an axial end of one edge of the tread to the center of the tread so as to define a preferred direction of running of the tire, and having an axial width, the each half element (MA1, MB1; MA2, MB2) comprising a first, lateral portion (Z3) extending from an axial end of the edge of the tread over an axial width equal to at most one third of the axial width of the each half element, a second, central portion (Z1) having the same axial width as the first, lateral portion (Z3), and a third, intermediate portion (Z2) contiguous with the two other portions, wherein the first, lateral portion is defined within a zone in which the each half element has a trailing face making an angle with respect to the circumferential direction greater than an angle that the trailing face of the each half element in a zone for the third, intermediate portion makes with respect to the circumferential direction, and wherein the third, intermediate portion is defined within a zone in which the each half element has a trailing face making an angle with respect to the circumferential direction greater than an angle that the trailing face of the each half element in a zone for the second, central portion makes with respect to the circumferential direction since
(1) Mosnier et al teaches providing blocks 5 separated by grooves 9 for evacuating water in a directional tread pattern such that each block has a central zone (second central portion) inclined at angle β1 = 35-65 degrees with respect to axial direction (angle = 25-55 degrees with respect to circumferential direction), an intermediate zone (third intermediate portion) inclined at an angle β2 with respect to the axial direction and an edge zone (first lateral portion) inclined at angle β3 = 0-10 degrees with respect to axial direction (angle = 80-90 degrees with respect to circumferential direction) to reduce risk of stones being trapped in the grooves
[FIGURE 1, paragraphs 7-8, 55-56],
(2) Mosnier et al teaches providing the blocks with a curved shape wherein this curvature variable or formed by a succession of segments [paragraphs 51, 56], and
(3) (A) Mosnier et al shows axial width of the second central portion 2 being about the same as axial width of the first lateral portion 1 [FIGURE 1], and (B) Mosnier et al shows angle θ1 (grooves in first lateral portion) with respect to circumferential direction being greater than angle θ3 (grooves third intermediate portion) with respect to circumferential direction and angle θ3 (grooves third intermediate portion) with respect to circumferential direction being greater than angle θ2 (grooves second central portion) with respect to circumferential direction [FIGURE 1] wherein the grooves have leading faces and trailing faces [FIGURE 3]. While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). It is noted that leading faces and trailing faces of the grooves define trailing faces and leading faces of the blocks.
As to claims 15-18, 20 and 26-27, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Mosnier et al’s tire such that
each portion (Z1, Z2, Z3) of the each half-element (MA1, MB1; MA2, MB2) is a volumetric element having a respective leading face, which is the face of which a radially outer edge corner is first to enter a contact patch in which the tire is in contact with the ground, the radially outer edge corner of each respective leading face being a leading edge corner, the each portion (Z1, Z2, Z3) of the each half-element (MA1, MB1; MA2, MB2) having a respective trailing face, which is the face of which the radially outer edge corner is last to leave the contact patch in which the tire is in contact with the ground, the radially outer edge corner of the respective trailing face being a trailing edge corner, the leading edge corner of the each portion (Z1, Z2, Z3) respectively having a chamfered profile (51, 52, 53), with respective widths of chamfers LC1A, LC2A, LC3A for a half element MA1 and a half element MA2 of the first tread pattern element MA and, respectively, LC1B, LC2B, LC3B for a half element MB1 and a half element MB2 of the second tread pattern element, a width of a chamfer in the each portion (Z1, Z2, Z3) of the each half element being a normal distance between a leading face of the each portion of the each half element and an edge corner of the chamfer belonging to the tread surface, the tread being obtained through a periodic distribution in the circumferential direction of the first tread pattern element MA formed of the half element MA1 and of the half element MA2, which is a symmetric counterpart of the half element MA1 at a pitch PA, and of the second tread pattern element MB formed of the half element MB1 and of the half element MB2, which is a symmetric counterpart of the half element MB1 at a pitch PB, where PA<PB,
a sipe being a cut or void in which a distance between walls of material that delimit the sipe is less than or equal to 2 mm and a depth of which is greater than or equal to 1 mm, a sipes density SD of the each tread pattern element corresponding to a ratio between a sum of projected lengths Ipyi of sipes of the each tread pattern element (MA, MB) along an axial direction to a product of the pitch PA or the pitch PB of the each tread pattern element and a width (W) of the tread, the resulting value being multiplied by 1000, such that
PNG
media_image3.png
44
424
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where SDA = a sipes density for the first tread pattern element, SDB = a sipes density for the second tread pattern element, nay and nby are a number of sipes of each tread pattern element (MA, MB) and Ipyi is a projected length of the i-th sipe of a given element, wherein, in the second, central portion or the third, intermediate portion or the first, lateral portion, the width of the chamfer of each leading edge corner LCiA, LCiB, i ranging from 1 to 3, of each half-element (MA1, MA2) and (MB1, MB2) with a respective pitch (PA, PB) satisfies the following inequalities:
a) for the second, central portion Z1:
PNG
media_image4.png
46
214
media_image4.png
Greyscale
b) for the third, intermediate portion Z2:
PNG
media_image5.png
50
256
media_image5.png
Greyscale
c) for the first, lateral portion Z3:
PNG
media_image6.png
50
258
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein the width of the chamfer of each trailing edge corner LCA, LCB of the first half elements or the second half elements satisfies at least one of the following conditions: a chamfer width of a chamfer in the third, intermediate portion of the second tread pattern element MB is greater than a chamfer width of a chamfer in the third, intermediate portion of the first tread pattern element MA; a chamfer width of a chamfer in the second, central portion of the second tread pattern element MB is greater than a chamfer width of a chamfer in the second, central portion of the first tread pattern element MA; or a chamfer width of a chamfer in the first, lateral portion of the second tread pattern element MB is greater than a chamfer width of a chamfer in the first, lateral portion of the first tread pattern element MA,
widths of chamfers of leading edge corners LC1A, LC2A, LC3A for the first tread pattern element MA formed of the half-element MA1 and the half element MA2 and (LC1B, LC2B, LC3B) for the second tread pattern element MB formed of the half-element MB1 and the half element MB2 of each respective portion (Z1, Z2, Z3) satisfy at least one of the following relationships: LC1X belongs to a range from 0.5 mm to 2 mm, where X=A, or B, LC2X belongs to a range from 1 mm to 2.5 mm, where X=A or B, and LC3X belongs to a range from 1.5 mm to 3 mm, where X=A, or B,
wherein the sipes density SD of the each tread pattern element (SDA, SDB) is at least equal to 10 mm-1 and at most equal to 70 mm-1 [claim 15],
the tread comprises a number (NA, NB) of the tread pattern elements (MA, MB), an average sipes density SDmoy being at least equal to 10 mm-1 and at most equal to 70 mm-1, with the average sipes density SDmoy being defined by:
PNG
media_image7.png
40
270
media_image7.png
Greyscale
where (SDA, SDB) are sipe densities of the tread pattern elements (MA, MB) [claim 16],
a ratio between the pitch PA of the first tread pattern element MA formed of the each half-elements (MA1, MA2) divided by the pitch PB of the second tread pattern element MB formed of the each half-elements (MB1, MB2), PA/PB is at least equal to 0.60 and at most equal to 0.90 [claim 17],
a ratio between the pitch PA of the first tread pattern element MA formed of the each half-elements (MA1, MA2) divided by the pitch PB of the second tread pattern element MB formed of the each half-elements (MB1, MB2), PA/PB is at least equal to 0.85 [claim 18],
the tread further comprising a third tread pattern element MC formed of two tread pattern half-elements (MC1, MC2) that are symmetric with respect to the equatorial plane (C), with a pitch PC, where the pitch PB is smaller than the pitch PC, wherein a ratio of the pitches PB/PC is greater than or equal to a ratio of pitches PA/PB [claim 20],
at least 30% of the leading edge corner or the trailing edge corner have a chamfer [claim 26],
the tread comprises a number (NA, NB, NC) of tread pattern elements (MA, MB, MC), the average sipes density SDmoy being at least equal to 10 mm-1 and at most equal to 70 mm-1, with the average sipes density SDmoy being defined by:
PNG
media_image8.png
42
358
media_image8.png
Greyscale
where SDC is the sipes density of a third element MC of a tread pattern
[claim 27]
since (1) Guichon #1 teaches providing a pneumatic tire (passenger size 245/45R17) having a tread comprising blocks separated by grooves such that leading and trailing edges of each block is chamfered wherein chamfer angle = 30 to 60 degrees (e.g. 45 degrees) with respect to the tread surface, chamfer width = 1-3 mm (e.g. 1.5 mm) and chamfer depth = 1-3 mm (e.g. 1.5 mm) to improve snow performance, (2) Europe 757 teaches providing a tire having a directional tread pattern comprising blocks separated by grooves [FIGURE 1] such that the tread defines a sequence of pitches comprising three different pitch lengths (SMALL PITCH , MEDIUM PITCH, LARGE PITCH) wherein length MEDIUM PITCH = 105 to 120% length SMALL PITCH [pitch PB = 1.05 to 1.20 pitch PA → pitch PA = 0.83 to 0.95 pitch PB] and length MEDIUM PITCH = 85 to 95% length LARGE PITCH [pitch PB = 0.85 to 0.95 pitch PC] to give good noise reduction, (3) Korea 811 teaches providing a pneumatic tire for automobile having a tread comprising blocks and small pitches S, medium pitches M and large pitches L wherein leading edges and trailing edges of the blocks have chamfers such that chamfer size (width W and depth D) is proportional to block size (length L) [Ws = 99-100% Ls, Wm = 99-101% Lm, WL = 98-101% LL] to improve braking performance, ensure uniformity of ground pressure between blocks and prevent abnormal wear [FIGURES 1-4, machine translation] and (4) Guichon #2 teaches using sipe density < 40 mm-1, lateral groove density > 35 mm-1 and longitudinal CSR > 0.85 to improve snow and dry traction; Guichon #2’s directional tread pattern shown in FIGURE 17 being similar to the directional tread pattern shown by Mosnier et al in FIGURE 1.
As to CLAIMS 15, 16 and 27: Guichon #1 provides ample motivation (improve snow performance) to chamfer the leading edge corners and trailing edge corners of the blocks of Mosnier et al such that chamfer width = 1-3 mm. Europe 757 provides ample motivation (reduce noise) to provide Mosnier et al’s tread such that PA/PB = 0.83 to 0.95 and PB/PC = 0.85 to 0.95. When Mosnier et al’s tread is provided such that chamfer width (leading edge corner) = 1-3 mm, chamfer width (trailing edge corner) =
1-3 mm [as per Guichon #1] and PA/PB = 0.83 to 0.95 and PB/PC = 0.85 to 0.95 [as per Europe 757] and chamfer width is proportional to block length [Korea 811], then the resulting tread of Mosnier et al satisfies the inequalities set forth in claim 15. With respect to sipe density (claims 15, 16 and 27), note Guichon #2’s teaching to use sipe density < 40 mm-1, lateral groove density > 35 mm-1 and longitudinal CSR > 0.85 to improve snow and dry traction; Guichon #2’s directional tread pattern shown in FIGURE 17 being similar to the directional tread pattern shown by Mosnier et al in FIGURE 1.
As to CLAIM 17: Europe 757 teaches PA/PB = 0.83 to 0.95 (overlapping claimed range of 0.80 to 0.90).
As to CLAIM 18: Europe 757 teaches PA/PB = 0.83 to 0.95 (overlapping claimed range of at least 0.85).
As to CLAIM 20: Europe 757 teaches PA/PB = 0.83 to 0.95 and PB/PC = 0.85 to 0.95. Therefore, PB/PC may be greater than or equal to PA/PB. As to CLAIM 26: Guichon #1 renders obvious chamfering leading and trailing edges of Mosnier et al’s blocks.
As to claim 21 (radial height Hmax at most equal to 9 mm), Mosnier et al teaches that each block of the tread has a height H = 6 to 8 mm [FIGURE 3, paragraph 10].
As to claim 23 (the volumetric void ratio TEM of each tread pattern element (MA, MB, MC) is more or less identical), Mosnier et al teaches that each block of the tread has a height H = 6 to 8 mm [FIGURE 3, paragraph 10] and Europe 757 teaches PA/PB = 0.83 to 0.95 and PB/PC = 0.85 to 0.95. When Europe 757’s teachings are incorporated in Mosnier et al’s tire, then the volumetric void ratio of each tread pattern element (block) is more or less (about) identical.
As to claim 24, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Mosnier et al’s tire such that a maximum pitch of the tread pattern elements (PA, PB, PC) is between 22 mm and 40 mm since (1) Europe 757 teaches length MEDIUM PITCH = 105 to 120% length SMALL PITCH and length MEDIUM PITCH = 85 to 95% length LARGE PITCH and (2) Guichon #2 teaches providing a pneumatic tire (e.g. tire size 205/55R16) having a directional tread pattern [FIGURE 17] such that pitch length = 15 to 35 mm [paragraph 11].
Claim 25 describes a composition of a rubbery material of the tread has a glass transition temperature Tg of between -40°C and -10°C and a complex dynamic shear modulus G* measured at 60°C of between 0.5 MPa and 2 MPa. As to this claim, note that Mosnier et al teaches that the blocks of the tread are made up of an elastomer composition based on a diene elastomer, a plasticizing system and an interlinking system, wherein the elastomer composition has a glass transition temperature of between −40° C. and −15° C and a shear modulus G* measured at 60° C. of between 0.5 MPa and 1.1 MPa [paragraph 71].
7) Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosnier et al (US 2018/0065416) in view of Mosnier et al (US 2018/0065416) in view of Guichon #1 (US 2012/0267021), Europe 757 (EP 739757), Guichon #2 (US 2014/0230980) and Korea 811 (KR 2014-0025811) as applied above and further in view of Muhlhoff et al (US 2021/0370722 or WO 2019/102149).
As to claim 22, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Mosnier et al’s tire such that the volumetric void ratio TEV of the tread is between 20% and 40% wherein an overall volumetric void ratio TEV corresponds to a ratio of a void volume VE to a total volume VT of the tread such that TEV=VE/VT since Muhlhoff et al teaches providing a pneumatic passenger tire having a tread (tread element height = 5 mm to 8 mm) such that volume void ratio is 22 to 30% to ensure good performance in terms of grip on wet ground [paragraphs 30, 57].
8) Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosnier et al (US 2018/0065416) in view of Mosnier et al (US 2018/0065416) in view of Guichon #1 (US 2012/0267021), Europe 757 (EP 739757), Guichon #2 (US 2014/0230980) and Korea 811 (KR 2014-0025811) as applied above and further in view of TRACANADA (“Winter Tires: What You Should Know”, www.tracanada.ca).
As to claim 28, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Mosnier et al’s tire such that the tire has a 3PMSF (3 Peaks Mountain Snow Flake) winter certification indicated on at least one of its sidewalls since (1) Mosnier et al teaches that the tire may be used under wintery conditions with very cold temperatures without deterioration of performance [paragraph 33] and that the tire is particularly advantageous on snow covered and/or icy ground [paragraph 35]. (2) Guichon #2 teaches using sipe density < 40 mm-1, lateral groove density > 35 mm-1 and longitudinal CSR > 0.85 to improve snow and dry traction; Guichon et al’s directional tread pattern shown in FIGURE 17 being similar to the directional tread pattern shown by Mosnier et al in FIGURE 1 and (3) TRACANADA teaches that a Three Peak Mountain Snowflake Symbol is provided on a sidewall of a tire when the tire meets specific snow traction performance requirements and have been designed specifically for use in severe snow conditions.
Remarks
9) Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 15-18 and 20-28 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection and the reasons presented therein.
With respect to applicant’s description in the supplemental response filed 11-7-25 of the interview on 10-14-25, examiner comments: INTERVIEW RECORD OK.
10) No claim is allowed.
11) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN D MAKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Katelyn B Smith (Whatley) can be reached on 571-270-5545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN D MAKI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
March 14, 2026