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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-21, and 23, in the reply filed on June 10, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 25 has been withdrawn from consideration as being directed towards a non-elected invention.
Claim Interpretation
The term “soft elastomeric polymer” in claim 16 is interpreted as meaning a polymer that at ambient temperatures is above its glass transition temperature, consistent with 0063 of the published application.
The term “fine fiber” in claim 16 is interpreted as referring to fibers having a median fiber diameter of no greater than about 50 micrometers (μm), consistent with para 0046 of the published application.
The term “microfibers” in claim 16 is interpreted as are a population of fibers having a median fiber diameter of at least one μm but no greater than 100 μm, consistent with para 0047 of the published application.
The term “ultrafine microfibers” in claim 16 is interpreted as referring to a population of microfibers having a median fiber diameter of two μm or less, consistent with para 0048 of the published application.
The term “sub-micrometer fibers” in claim 16 is interpret as referring to are a population of fibers having a median fiber diameter of no greater than one μm, consistent with para 0049 of the published application.
The term “layer” in claim 17 is interpret as meaning a single stratum formed between two major surface, consistent with para 0061 of the published application.
The term “self-supporting” in claim 18 is interpreted as meaning a web having sufficient coherency and strength so as to be drapable and handleable without substantial tearing or rupture, consistent with para 0029 of the published application.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 objected to because of the following informalities: - Claim 16 should read “—wherein the population of fibers comprises a population of fine fibers, a population of microfibers, a population of ultrafine microfibers, a population of sub-micrometer fibers, or any combination thereof” . Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-21, and 23 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “ambient temperatures.” However, the ambient temperature has not been defined and will be dependent on the environment, such as in the dessert would be very high but in the artic would be very low.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein the filler is present in an amount from about 2% to about 40% by weight of the composite, such as from about 5% to about 30% by weight, based on the total weight of the composite. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation of about 2% to about 40% by weight, and the claim also recites about 5% to about 30% by weight which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the filler comprises an antimicrobial filler.” However, claim 1, upon which claim 13 depends, has the filler being optional. It is unclear if claim 13 intends to require the filler or merely limits the filler if present.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the antimicrobial filler” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 13 recites an antimicrobial filler, however, claim 14 is not dependent upon claim 13. It is unclear if the claim intends to have a filler that is antimicrobial filler as claimed or intends to limit an antimicrobial filler, if present, to be one of the recited materials listed. Additionally, claim 14 recites the limitation “comprises one or more antimicrobial metals chosen from silver, copper, zinc, and combination thereof.” It is unclear if the list is intended to be in the alternative, such as a Markush group, or requiring at least one metal from each of the listed material. If intended to be alternative and as a Markush group, the phrasing “one or more antimicrobial metals selected from the group consisting of silver, copper, zinc, and combinations thereof” would reflect this interpretation.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “wherein the nonwoven web has a basis weight of at least 80 g/m2, such as a basis weight of at least 100 g/m2, at least 150 g/m2, or at least 200 g/m2. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 20 recites the broad recitation of at least 80 g/m2, and the claim also recites of at least 100 g/m2, at least 150 g/m2, or at least 200 g/m2 which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purpose of compact prosecution and prior art application, Examiner will interpret claim 20 as limiting the basis weight to being at least 80 g/m2.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency on rejected claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 12, 16-17, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 2014/0187114 to Peng, as evidence by Engineered Materials Handbook to ASM International.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 6, 12, 16-17, and 23, Peng teaches a nonwoven comprising a population of fiber comprising a polyolefin elastomer (TPE), polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) being added in amount of from 0.5 to 10% by weight of the material, and a optionally filler (Peng, abstract, para 0049-0055, 0078, 0080-0081-0085), reading on a composite that comprises a thermoplastic elastomeric polymer (TPE) component, soft elastomeric polymer component, and optionally. ASM International shows that polydimethyl siloxane is known to have a glass transition temperature of -123°C (ASM International, Table), reading on a soft elastomeric polymer component that at ambient temperature is above its glass transition temperature.
Regarding claim 2, Peng teaches the polyolefin elastomer being an olefin block copolymer described and fully incorporated by reference by US Pub. No. 2006/0199911 to Markovich (Peng, para 0054). Markovich teaches the polymer being an elastomeric interpolymer of ethylene and teaches the inclusion of isobutylene (Markovich, abstract, para 0123), reading on an polyisobutylene polymer.
Regarding claim 6, Peng teaches the polyolefin elastomer being a multi-block copolymer or segmented copolymer that is linear (Peng, para 0055-0059, 0066-0068, 0078), reading on the TPE component having a linear structure.
Regarding claim 12, Peng teaches the filer being more preferably 5-8% by weight of the fiber (composite) (Peng, para 0080).
Regarding claim 16-17, Peng teaches the nonwoven being meltblown which forms microfibers (Peng, para 0011-0-0011, 0013), reading on the population of fiber comprising a population of microfibers (claim 17) and would be formed as a single layer (claim 17).
Regarding claim 23, Peng teaches the fabric being incorporated into multicomponent articles like diapers, wound dressings, and feminine hygiene products (Peng, para 0002), reading on an article comprising a nonwoven fibrous web that is a personal hygiene article or a wound dressing.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, 16-18, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 2017/0309266 to Akasaka.
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, 16-18, 20, and 23, Akasaka teaches a nonwoven fabric comprising a fiber formed form an elastomer that includes a thermoplastic elastomer, including linear and star-like branched (claim 6, 9) diblock copolymers and triblock copolymers of styrene/ethylene/butylene (SEB), styrene/ethylene/propylene (SEP), styrene/ethylene/ethylene/propylene (SEEP), styrene/ethylene/butylene/styrene (SEBS), styrene/ethylene/propylene/styrene (SEPS), styrene/ethylene/ethylene/propylene/styrene (SEEPS), styrene/isobutylene (SIB) (polyisobutylene-styrene copolymer, claim 7), styrene/isobutylene/styrene (SIBS) copolymers (claims 2-4), and mixtures of these copolymers (Akasaka, para 0006-0009, 0012-0015, 0029-0030, 0077). Akasaka teaches the glass transition temperature of the TPE being associated with the elastomer blocks and being preferably 25°C or lower (Id., para 0034), reading on the TPE can also read on a soft elastomeric polymer component that at ambient temperatures is above its glass transition temperature based on an ambient temperature of above 25°C. As a mixture of thermoplastic elastomers is within the scope and the thermoplastic elastomers can also read on a soft elastomeric polymer component, the fiber is formed from a composite that comprises a thermoplastic elastomeric polymer (TPE) component and a soft elastomeric polymer component.
Regarding claim 10, the claim does not require the thermoplastic elastomer to be different from the soft elastomeric polymer component. As the thermoplastic elastomers disclosed by Akasaka can be above its glass transition temperature at ambient temperature, the same thermoplastic elastomer of Akasaka can map to both the thermoplastic elastomeric polymer component and the soft elastomeric component. Akasaka teaches the another (non-thermoplastic) elastomer can be used with the TPE accounting for at least 65 mass %, preferably at least 95% by mass, based on all elastomer present in the elastomer composition (Id., para 0081). As the fiber contain multiple components, it is formed form a composite. As the fiber is at least 95% by weight and the thermoplastic elastomer can correspond to both the TPE component and the soft elastomeric polymer component, the TPE can be present from 10 to 85% by weight and the soft elastomeric component can be present in an amount from about 85 to about 10% by weight.
Regarding claim 16, Akasaka teaches the fibers having an average fiber diameter less than 3,000 nm, preferably 400-1200 nm (Akasaka, abstract, para 0090), reading on the population of fibers comprising a population of ultrafine microfibers and a population of sub-micrometer fibers.
Regarding claim 17, Akasaka teaches the nonwoven being formed by electrospinning or melt-spinning (Akasaka, para 0085), reading on the nonwoven web being formed as a single layer.
Regarding claim 18, Akasaka teaches the nonwoven having a thickness of less than 10 mm preferably 1.5-7.5 mm and capable of being subjected to a flow resistivity test (Akasaka, para 0093-0094), indicating that the nonwoven is self-supporting.
Regarding claim 20, Akasaka teaches the nonwoven fabric having a bulk density greater than 70 kg/m3 and less than 750 kg/m3 and thickness less than 10 mm, more preferably 1.5 to 7.5 mm (Akasaka, abstract, para 0091-0093). Akasaka teaches an embodiment having a thickness of 3 mm and bulk density of 373 kg/m3 (Id., para 0103, 0111), equating to a basis weight of 1119 g/m2.
Regarding claim 23, Akasaka teaches the nonwoven being used as a sound absorbing body (Akasaka, para 0001), reading on an article comprising the nonwoven fibrous web that is a sound absorption article.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 103
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 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Pub. No. 2017/0309266 to Akasaka, remaining as applied to claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, 16-18, 20, and 23 above.
Regarding claim 21 and the claimed average filtration efficiency relative to 20 nm to 450 nm NaCl particles of at least 60%, in general, a limitation is inherent if it is the “natural result flowing from” the explicit disclosure of the prior art. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Therefore, although the prior art does not disclose this property, the claimed property is deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since the prior art reference teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Akasaka teaches a nonwoven web formed of fibers comprising a blend of thermoplastic elastomer, including soft elastomeric component, having a fiber diameter of preferably 400 nm to 1200 nm as claimed. Akasaka also teaches a flow resistivity greater than 4.0 E+06 Ns/m4 and less than 5.0 E+08 Ns/m4, which can also correlate with filtration. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2014/0187114 to Peng, as evidenced by Engineered Materials Handbook to ASM International, remaining as applied to claims 1, 2, 6, 12, 16-17, and 23 above.
Regarding claim 10, Peng teaches an embodiment wherein the PDMS being added in amount of from 0.5 to 10% by weight of the material (composite) forming the sheath with the filler being optional (Peng, para 0080,0082), indicating the polyolefin elastomer is 99.9 to 90% by weight by weight of the material. While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of the TPE being present in amount from about 10% to about 90% and the soft elastomeric polymer component being present in an amount from about 90% to about 10% by weight of the composite, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that 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). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the amount, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2014/0187114 to Peng, as evidenced by Engineered Materials Handbook to ASM International, remaining as applied to claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 12, 16-17, and 23 above in view of US Pub. No. 2009/0068283 to Sugiura.
Regarding claims 13-14, Peng teaches the inorganic filler being any inorganic filler known in the art (Peng, para 0080). Peng teaches the fabric being incorporated into multicomponent articles like diapers, wound dressings, and feminine hygiene products (Id., para 0002).
Peng does not explicitly teach the filler being an antimicrobial filler or comprising silver, copper, and/or zinc (claim 14).
However, Sugiura teaches a silver-based inorganic antimicrobial agent that has excellent heat resistance and chemical resistance, giving little resin coloration, has excellent processability, and excellent antimicrobial activity (Sugiura, abstract, para 0017, 0024). Sugiura teaches the silver-based inorganic antimicrobial agent being added to a resin, including various polyolefin, rubber, and elastomers (Id., para 0066). Sugiura teaches the silver-based inorganic antimicrobial agent being used in filters, diapers, bandages, masks, and housing/building material including decorative boards, wall paper, flooring boards, carpets, and mats (Id., para 0073).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven of Peng, wherein the filler including the silver-base inorganic filler of Sugiura, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known filler predictably suitable for use with polyolefins an elastomer used in diaper and bandage (wound dressings) and by the desire to impart excellent antimicrobial activity well ensuring excellent heat resistance and chemical resistance and processability.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2017/0309266 to Akasaka, remaining as applied to claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, 16-18, 20, and 23 above.
Regarding claim 12, Akasaka teaches an additive, including a filler, being present in an amount of 0.1 to 50% by mass of the fiber (Akasaka, para 0084). While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of about 2% to about 40% by weight of the fiber (composite), the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that 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). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the weight percent of the filler, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2017/0309266 to Akasaka, as applied to claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12, 16-18, 20, and 23 above, in view of Electrospun Fiber Mats from Poly(alloocimene-isobutylene-alloocimene) Thermoplastic Elastomer to Jindal.
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Akasaka teaches the thermoplastic elastomer including styrene/isobutylene (SIB) and styrene/isobutylene/styrene (SIBS) copolymers (Akasaka, para 0077). AK teaches the nonwoven being formed by electrospinning (Id., para 0090, 0102-0103). Akasaka teaches the sound absorbing material being used in electrical products (Id., para 0100).
Akasaka does not teach the thermoplastic elastomer comprising poly(alloocimene-b-isobutylene-b-alloocimene).
However, Jindal teaches poly(alloocimene-b-isobutylene-b-alloocimene triblock copolymer is a new polyisobutylene-based thermoplastic elastomer that is highly hydrophobic and has high electric resistivity (Jindla, abstract), Jindal teaches a fiber mat formed comprising the poly(alloocimene-b-isobutylene-b-alloocimene that is hydrophobic and suitable for tissue scaffold and drug delivery formed by electrospinning (Id.). Jindal teaches the water contact angle being 121 (claim 19) and the results being comparable to Arbomatrix fibers, which comprises branched (arborscent or dendritic) polyisobutylene core and end block of poly(p-methylstyrene) (Id., p. 8-9, 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven of Akasaka, wherein the thermoplastic elastomer comprises the poly(alloocimene-b-isobutylene-b-alloocimene triblock copolymer of Jindal, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known thermoplastic elastomer predictably suitable for forming nonwoven mat, such as formed by electrospinning, and by the desire to impart high hydrophobic and high electricity properties.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art combination teaches the mat having high hydrophobicity and capable of having a water contact angle of 121 (Jindal, p. 8-9, 3). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would appreciate that electrical application often desire high water impermeability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven of the prior art combination, wherein the nonwoven has a high contact angle, such as 121, motivated by the desire to impart high hydrophobicity to the web, useful in electric applications for sound absorbing.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2017/0309266 to Akasaka, as applied to claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12, 16-18, 20, and 23 above, in view of US Pub. No. 2009/0068283 to Sugiura.
Regarding claims 13-14, Akasaka teaches the nonwoven being used in construction materials (Akasaka, para 0100).
Akasaka does not explicitly teach the filler being ana antimicrobial filler, such as being an inorganic material that comprises one or more antimicrobial metals choses from
However, Sugiura teaches a silver-based inorganic antimicrobial agent that has excellent heat resistance and chemical resistance, giving little resin coloration, has excellent processability, and excellent antimicrobial activity (Sugiura, abstract, para 0017, 0024). Sugiura teaches the silver-based inorganic antimicrobial agent being added to a resin, including various polyolefin, rubber, and elastomers (Id., para 0066). Sugiura teaches the silver-based inorganic antimicrobial agent being used in filters, diapers, bandages, masks, and housing/building material including decorative boards, wall paper, flooring boards, carpets, and mats (Id., para 0073).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven of Akasaka, wherein the filler including the silver-base inorganic filler of Sugiura, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known filler predictably suitable for use with elastomer used in housing and building material and by the desire to impart excellent antimicrobial activity well ensuring excellent heat resistance and chemical resistance and processability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub. No. 2011/0021710 to Jacob teaches an article, including nonwoven fabric, made from an elastomeric composition comprising at least one propylene-based polymer and one or more secondary elastomeric component including EPDM as well as SBR, SBS, SIBR, SIS, SEBS in an amount of up to 50 phr formed into fibers. US Pub. No. 2011/0152810 to Lambert teaches a textile comprising elastomeric stretch fibers comprising at least one propylene-based polymer and one or more secondary elastomeric component and teaches the additional elastomeric component being star-branched polyisobutylene rubber, star-branched brominated butyl(polyisobutylene/isoprene copolymer) rubber; poly(isobutylene-co-alkylstyrene), suitable isobutylene/methylstyrene copolymers such as isobutylene/meta-bromomethylstyrene, isobutylene/bromomethylstyrene, isobutylene/chloromethylstyrene, halogenated isobutylene cyclopentadiene, and isobutylene/chloromethylstyrene and mixtures thereof. US Pub. No. 2016/0229999 to Puskas teaches a polymer composite, such as being electropsun fiber, comprising a functionalized polyisobutylene and an additional polyisobutylene-containing material, the polyisobutylene-containing material being a thermoplastic elastomer, such as linear poly(isobutylene(OH)-b-(isobutylene-co-para-methylstyrene)s, star poly(isobutylene(OH)-b-(isobutylene-co-para-methylstyrene)s, arborescent poly(isobutylene(OH)-b-(isobutylene-co-para-methylstyrene)s, linear poly(styrene-b-isobutylene-b-styrene)s, star poly(styrene-b-isobutylene-b-styrene)s, arborescent poly(styrene-b-isobutylene-b-styrene)s, linear poly(isobutylene-OH-co-para-methylstyrene), star poly(isobutylene-OH-co-para-methylstyrene), arborescent poly(isobutylene-OH-co-para-methylstyrene), linear poly alloocimene-b-isobutylene-b-alloocimene), star poly(alloocimene-b-isobutylene-b-alloocimene), and arborescent poly(alloocimene-b-isobutylene-b-alloocimene) and being suitable as a biomaterial (Id., para 0004).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER ANN GILLETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0556. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM- 4:30 PM EST M-H.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNIFER A GILLETT/Examiner, Art Unit 1789