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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the Amendment filed on 08/21/2025.
Claims 1-23 are presently pending and under examination; claims 1, 7, 11, 13, 15 and 19 are amended.
The objections to the abstract and specification are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the abstract/specification; a new objection to the abstract is present herein in light of the amendments to the abstract.
The objections to claims 7, 11 and 19 are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
The rejection of claims 7-8 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 15 and 17-18 over claims 1, 9 and 12 of U.S. Pat. No. 11,945,758 is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 1-12, 15, 18 and 20-23 over CLODIC is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims; the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 13-14 over CLODIC, claim 16 over CLODIC in view of GILLIAM, claim 17 over CLODIC in view of WEISS, and claim 19 over CLODIC in view of PANESAR are maintained.
New grounds of rejection are present herein in light of the amendments to the claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/21/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final action on 04/21/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informality:
Line 4 of the abstract (filed 08/21/2025) appears to contain a typo; “vlast furnace slag” should read “blast furnace slag”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-15, 18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clodic, et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0255542-A1) (hereinafter, “CLODIC”).
Regarding claim 1, CLODIC teaches a cement blend composition (see CLODIC generally at Abstract and paragraphs [0003]-[0004]), comprising: reactive vaterite cement (see CLODIC at paragraphs [0003]-[0004]) and supplementary cementitious material (SCM) comprising aluminosilicate material (see CLODIC at paragraph [0004], teaching SCMs comprising aluminosilicate material, e.g., pozzolan-lime cement and slag-lime cement), wherein the cement blend composition comprises by weight an amount of aluminosilicate material overlapping with and thereby rendering obvious the claimed range of 10-35% (see CLODIC at paragraph [0092], teaching that the remainder (after the 10-70% vaterite) of the composition is primarily CAC (i.e., 30% to 90% by weight), wherein the CAC has admixtures such as metakaolin, a heat-treated clay aluminosilicate material; see also CLODIC at paragraph [0056], teaching that the composition may comprise 10% to 50% by weight of e.g. blast furnace slag or fly ash, which are aluminosilicate materials). As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, 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)).
Regarding claim 2, CLODIC teaches a composition according to claim 1, wherein the composition is a cement paste or cement slurry composition (see CLODIC at paragraph [0004], teaching a wet paste, and teaching combining the cement with water, i.e., forming a cement slurry composition) further comprising at least one of aragonite cement, calcite, carboaluminate hydrate, water, or a combination thereof (see CLODIC at paragraph [0004], teaching water).
Regarding claim 3, CLODIC teaches a composition according to claim 1, wherein the reactive vaterite cement has at least one of a specific surface area of between about 100-10,000 m2/kg (see CLODIC at paragraph [0091], teaching a specific a specific surface area range with a minimum of 10 m2/gm, i.e., 10,000 m2/kg); a spherical particle shape having an average particle size of between about 0.1-100 μm (see CLODIC at paragraphs [0004], [0037], [0058] and [0091], teaching spherical particles of vaterite, wherein the composition comprising carbonate (i.e., the vaterite cement) has a mean particle size of between 1 to 25 μm); and/or further comprises magnesium oxide (see CLODIC at paragraph [0119], teaching magnesium oxide).
Regarding claim 4, CLODIC teaches a composition according to claim 1, wherein the reactive vaterite cement reacts with the aluminosilicate material to form carboaluminate hydrate comprising monocarboaluminate, hemicarboaluminate, or a combination thereof (see CLODIC at paragraphs [0004] and [0037], teaching that the carbonate material (i.e., the vaterite cement) reacts with aluminate phases (i.e., of the aluminosilicate material) to form carboaluminate hydrate comprising monocarboaluminates and hemicarboaluminates).
Regarding claim 5, CLODIC teaches a composition according to claim 1, wherein the aluminosilicate material comprises at least one of a heat-treated clay, natural or artificial pozzolan, granulated blast furnace slag, or a combination thereof (see CLODIC at paragraphs [0004], [0056], [0092] and [0096], teaching pozzolan cement, pozzolan-lime cement, natural and artificial pozzolans, fly ash (which is a pozzolan), slag-lime cement, blast furnace cement (i.e., blast furnace slag), and metakaolin, which is a heat-treated clay).
Regarding claims 6-8, CLODIC teaches a composition according to claim 5, wherein the heat-treated clay comprises calcined clay as required by claim 6; wherein the heat-treated clay is obtained from clay material or from the untreated clay material belonging to a mineral from the kaolin group, as required by claim 7; and wherein the kaolin group comprises kaolinite, as required by claim 8 (see CLODIC at paragraph [0092], teaching metakaolin, which is a heat-treated, calcined kaolinite clay).
Regarding claim 9, CLODIC teaches a composition according to claim 1, wherein the composition further comprises Portland cement clinker (see CLODIC at paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 10, CLODIC teaches a composition according to claim 1, wherein the SCM further comprises a carbonate material comprising at least one of limestone, calcium carbonate, magnesium carbonate, calcium magnesium carbonate, or a combination thereof (see CLODIC at paragraphs [0004], [0052] and [0056], teaching SCMs including, e.g., amorphous calcium carbonate, magnesium carbonate, calcium carbonate, and limestone).
Regarding claims 11-12, CLODIC teaches a composition according to claim 1, wherein the composition further comprises alkali metal accelerator and/or an alkaline earth metal accelerator, as required by claim 11, and wherein the alkali metal accelerator or alkaline earth metal accelerator is selected from sodium carbonate, potassium carbonate, potassium hydroxide, or a combination thereof, as required by claim 12 (see CLODIC at paragraph [0113], teaching an alkaline/alkali agent such as potassium hydroxide, sodium carbonate or potassium carbonate).
Regarding claims 13-14, as applied to claim 1 above, CLODIC teaches a composition according to claim 1, comprising by weight
between about 10-50% reactive vaterite cement (see CLODIC at paragraph [0092], teaching 10% to 70%, by weight, of the composition comprising carbonate, i.e., the reactive vaterite),
and further comprising between about 0-10% limestone (see CLODIC at paragraph [0056], teaching 0.1% to 1% limestone by weight),
and between about 15-90% Portland cement clinker (see CLODIC at paragraph [0088], teaching 10% to 90% by weight of Portland cement, e.g., 20% to 80%, e.g., 75%)
as required by claim 13,
and further comprising between about 0.1-5% by weight gypsum (see CLODIC at paragraph [0056], teaching 0.1% to 10% gypsum by weight), as required by claim 14.
Each of these ranges lies within, encompasses, or overlaps with the claimed ranges, thereby rendering the claimed ranges obvious. As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, 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)).
Regarding claim 15, CLODIC teaches a method of producing a cement blend composition (see CLODIC generally at Abstract and paragraphs [0003]-[0005] and [0097]-[0100]) comprising:
(i) producing a reactive vaterite cement composition (see CLODIC at paragraphs [0003]-[0005]); and
(ii) blending a supplementary cementitious material (SCM) comprising aluminosilicate material with the reactive vaterite cement composition to produce a cement blend composition (see CLODIC at paragraphs [0003]-[0005], teaching blending a composition comprising carbonate, i.e., reactive vaterite cement, with SCMs comprising aluminosilicate material, e.g., pozzolan-lime cement and slag-lime cement),
wherein the cement blend composition comprises by weight an amount of aluminosilicate material overlapping with and thereby rendering obvious the claimed range of 10-35% (see CLODIC at paragraph [0092], teaching that the remainder (after the 10-70% vaterite) of the composition is primarily CAC (i.e., 30% to 90% by weight), wherein the CAC has admixtures such as metakaolin, a heat-treated clay aluminosilicate material; see also CLODIC at paragraph [0056], teaching that the composition may comprise 10% to 50% by weight of e.g. blast furnace slag or fly ash, which are aluminosilicate materials). As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, 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)).
Regarding claim 18, CLODIC teaches a method according to claim 15, wherein the aluminosilicate material comprises heat-treated clay, natural or artificial pozzolan, granulated blast furnace slag, or a combination thereof (see CLODIC at paragraphs [0004], [0056], [0092] and [0096], teaching pozzolan cement, pozzolan-lime cement, natural and artificial pozzolans, fly ash (which is a pozzolan), slag-lime cement, blast furnace cement (i.e., blast furnace slag), and metakaolin, which is a heat-treated clay).
Regarding claims 20-21, CLODIC teaches a method according to claim 15, further comprising mixing a carbonate material with the aluminosilicate material before the blending step (ii), as required by claim 20, and mixing Portland cement clinker with the aluminosilicate material before the blending step (ii), as required by claim 21 (see CLODIC at paragraphs [0009] and [0096], teaching that Portland cement (which comprises some carbonate material) may be mixed with, e.g., masonry cements comprising limestone (which is a carbonate material) and SCMs comprising aluminosilicate material, such as pozzolan-lime cements and slag-lime cements; i.e., carbonate material and aluminosilicate material may be combined/mixed prior to mixing these SCMs with the vaterite cement).
Regarding claim 22, CLODIC teaches a method according to claim 15, further comprising adding water to the cement blend composition and transforming the reactive vaterite cement to aragonite cement and/or calcite upon dissolution and re-precipitation in water (see CLODIC at paragraphs [0005] and [0057], teaching contacting the cementitious composition with water and converting the vaterite to aragonite and/or calcite as the carbonate compounds dissolve and re-precipitate).
Regarding claim 23, CLODIC teaches a method according to claim 22, further comprising reacting the reactive vaterite cement with the aluminosilicate material to form carboaluminate hydrate comprising monocarboaluminate, hemicarboaluminate, or a combination thereof (see CLODIC at paragraphs [0004] and [0037], teaching that the carbonate material (i.e., the vaterite cement) reacts with aluminate phases (i.e., of the aluminosilicate material) to form carboaluminate hydrate comprising monocarboaluminates and hemicarboaluminates).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CLODIC in view of Gilliam, et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0261428-A1) (hereinafter, “GILLIAM”).
Regarding claim 16, as applied to claim 15 above, CLODIC teaches a method according to claim 15, further comprising producing the reactive vaterite cement composition by
(a) providing calcined limestone to form a mixture comprising lime, and providing a gaseous stream comprising carbon dioxide (see CLODIC at paragraphs [0005], [0100] and [0116]-[0117], teaching contacting a gas stream comprising carbon dioxide with a proton removing agent to form CO2 charged water, wherein the proton-removing agent may be a naturally occurring proton-removing agent, e.g., a mineral such as lime (CaO), i.e., calcined limestone);
(b) dissolving the mixture comprising lime in a N-containing salt solution to produce an aqueous solution comprising calcium salt (see CLODIC at paragraphs [0016], [0089], [0116]-[0117] and [0128]-[0136], teaching contacting the CO2 charged water (i.e., the mixture comprising lime) with, e.g., a salt water absorbing solution, which may comprise nitrates (i.e., an N-containing salt solution), having a source of divalent cations, wherein the source of divalent cations may be, e.g., hydrated lime (i.e., calcium hydroxide, which is a calcium salt), or gypsum, which is a calcium salt, may be used as a source of calcium to form carbonate compositions such as calcium carbonate, which is a calcium salt); and
(c) treating the aqueous solution comprising calcium salt with the gaseous stream comprising carbon dioxide to form a composition comprising reactive vaterite cement (see CLODIC at paragraphs [0005], [0098]-[0100], [0113] and [0115]-[0117], teaching contacting the gas stream comprising carbon dioxide with the aqueous solution forms the composition comprising carbonate, i.e., the reactive vaterite cement).
However, regarding (a) above, CLODIC fails to explicitly teach a process step of calcining the limestone to form the gaseous stream comprising carbon dioxide.
GILLIAM teaches a method of forming calcium carbonate comprising vaterite (which may be used as a supplementary cementitious material) comprising calcining limestone to form a mixture comprising lime and a gaseous stream comprising carbon dioxide, then dissolving the lime in an aqueous N-containing salt solution, then contacting the solution with the gaseous stream comprising carbon dioxide to for a precipitation material comprising calcium carbonate which comprises vaterite (see GILLIAM at paragraphs [0057]-[0059] and [0071]). GILLIAM teaches that this method of calcining limestone to form the carbon dioxide gas which is used to precipitate the vaterite provides several advantages such as reduction of carbon dioxide emissions through the incorporation of the carbon dioxide back into the process, operating expense savings through reduction in fuel consumption, and reductions in carbon footprint (see GILLIAM at paragraphs [0068]-[0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of CLODIC by calcining limestone to produce the gaseous stream comprising carbon dioxide and mixture comprising lime, then dissolving the lime in the aqueous N-containing salt solution and contacting that solution with the gaseous stream comprising carbon dioxide in order to form the vaterite as taught by GILLIAM (see GILLIAM at paragraphs [0057]-[0059] and [0071]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of reducing carbon dioxide emissions and carbon footprint and reducing operating expense and fuel consumption as taught by GILLIAM (see GILLIAM at paragraphs [0068]-[0069]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CLODIC in view of Weiss, et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0261429-A1) (hereinafter, “WEISS”).
Regarding claim 17, CLODIC teaches a method according to claim 15, further comprising producing the reactive vaterite cement composition by
(a) dissolving calcined limestone in a N-containing salt solution to produce an aqueous solution comprising calcium salt, and providing a gaseous stream comprising carbon dioxide (see CLODIC at paragraphs [0005], [0016], [0089], [0100], [0116]-[0117] and [0128]-[0136], teaching contacting a gas stream comprising carbon dioxide with, e.g., a salt water comprising a proton removing agent to form CO2 charged water, wherein the salt water absorbing solution may comprise nitrates (i.e., an N-containing salt solution), and wherein proton-removing agent may be a naturally occurring proton-removing agent, e.g., a mineral such as lime (CaO), i.e., calcined limestone (i.e., the calcined limestone is dissolved in the N-containing salt solution), and contacting the CO2 charged water with a source of divalent cations, wherein the source of divalent cations may be, e.g., hydrated lime (i.e., calcium hydroxide, which is a calcium salt), or gypsum, which is a calcium salt, may be used as a source of calcium to form carbonate compositions such as calcium carbonate, which is a calcium salt); and
(b) treating the aqueous solution comprising calcium salt with the gaseous stream comprising carbon dioxide to form a composition comprising reactive vaterite cement (see CLODIC at paragraphs [0005], [0098]-[0100], [0113] and [0115]-[0117], teaching contacting the gas stream comprising carbon dioxide with the aqueous solution forms the composition comprising carbonate, i.e., the reactive vaterite cement).
However, regarding (a) above, CLODIC fails to explicitly teach a process step of dissolving limestone which produces the gaseous stream comprising carbon dioxide.
WEISS teaches a method of forming calcium carbonate comprising vaterite (which may be used as a supplementary cementitious material) comprising dissolving limestone in an aqueous N-containing inorganic salt solution to produce a first aqueous solution comprising calcium salt, and a gaseous stream comprising carbon dioxide, then treating the aqueous solution comprising calcium salt with the gaseous stream comprising carbon dioxide to form a precipitation material comprising calcium carbonate which comprises vaterite (see WEISS at paragraphs [0043] and [0061]). WEISS teaches that this method of using limestone directly then using the carbon dioxide gas produced to treat the aqueous solution and form the vaterite provides several advantages such as reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, operating expense savings through the reduction in fuel consumption, reductions in carbon footprint, and additional environmental benefits (see WEISS at paragraphs [0071]-[0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of CLODIC by directly dissolving limestone in an N-containing solution to produce the aqueous solution comprising calcium salt and the gaseous stream comprising carbon dioxide, then using the produced gaseous stream to treat the aqueous solution and form the vaterite as taught by WEISS (see WEISS at paragraph [0043]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of reducing carbon dioxide emissions and carbon footprint and providing additional environmental benefits while also reducing operating expense and fuel consumption as taught by WEISS (see WEISS at paragraphs [0071]-[0072]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CLODIC in view of Panesar, Daman K., "3 - Supplementary cementing materials", Developments in the Formulation and Reinforcement of Concrete (Second Edition), pages 55-85, Woodhead Publishing Series in Civil and Structural Engineering, 2019 (hereinafter, “PANESAR”).
Regarding claim 19, as applied to claim 18 above, CLODIC teaches a method according to claim 18.
However, CLODIC fails to explicitly teach that the method further comprises heating a clay material at a temperature between 500-1100 °C to produce the heat-treated clay before the blending step (ii) and/or further comprising grinding the heat-treated clay.
PANESAR teaches that metakaolin is a supplementary cementing material which is produced by the calcination of kaolinitic clay at temperatures between 500 °C and 900 °C (see PANESAR at pg. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of CLODIC by incorporating, before the blending step (ii), a step of heating a clay material at a temperature of between about 500 °C and 900 °C to produce the heat-treated clay (metakaolin) as taught by PANESAR, as PANESAR teaches that it is known in the art of supplementary cementitious materials that this is the process by which metakaolin is produced. One of ordinary skill in the art could have obtained the metakaolin through this process with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of forming metakaolin which is useful as a supplementary cementitious material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Further, the Amendment filed by Applicant necessitated new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 for claims 1-12, 15, 18 and 20-23 over CLODIC as set forth above.
Applicant argues:
“with respect to Clodic, the cited paragraph in the office action, which has been used against claim 13 or the present application, reads: ‘[0092] In some embodiments, the blend composition provided herein in wet or dried form may further include an aggregate…’” (see Remarks at pg. 9).
“The Applicant respectfully maintains that a typical amount of aluminosilicate material present in concrete is generally about 10% of the weight of the cement and this is a well established fact in the art. There is nothing in the cited references that suggest adding more aluminosilicate than the conventional amount of 10% of the weight of the cement” (see Remarks at pg. 9).
However, for at least the following reasons the Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive:
Regarding Applicant’s argument concerning paragraph [0092] of CLODIC, the quoted paragraph in Applicant’s arguments is not paragraph [0092] of CLODIC. Paragraph [0084] of CLODIC, which is not mentioned in the present rejection, appears similar to the paragraph quoted by Applicant regarding aggregate, but is not the same paragraph. The real paragraph [0092] of CLODIC, referenced in the present rejection, discusses aluminosilicate materials, not aggregate. It is not clear what the source of the paragraph quoted by Applicant is, but this paragraph does not appear to be from CLODIC.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the typical amount of aluminosilicate material is about 10% by weight, even an amount of 10% by weight overlaps with and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 10-35% aluminosilicate materials. Further, regarding Applicant’s argument that CLODIC does not suggest adding more than 10% by weight of aluminosilicate material, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth in the rejection of amended claims 1 and 15 above, CLODIC teaches amounts of aluminosilicate materials (blast furnace slag, fly ash, metakaolin, etc.) overlapping with and thereby rendering obvious the claimed range of 10-35% by weight, e.g., 10% to 50% by weight of blast furnace slag or fly ash (see CLODIC at paragraphs [0056] and [0092]). As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, 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)).
Consequently, for at least these reasons the Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH CATHERINE CASE whose telephone number is (703)756-5406. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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 on 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.
/S.C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights