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) 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.
2) 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.
no alkylphenol sulfur chloride condensate (claims 16 and 18)
3) Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8 and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roesgen et al (US 6,016,858) in view of German 669 (DE 102019127669) and Horiguchi (US 2014/0283966) and optionally in view of at least one of Europe 117 (EP 652117) and Hatanaka et al (US 2017/0197466).
Roesgen et al discloses a pneumatic passenger tire (e.g. tire size 195/65R15) having at least one radial ply, an overlay and a fiberglass belt structure [abstract, FIGURE 1]. The overlay comprises cords selected from the group of aramid, rayon, PEN, PET and PVA [abstract]. A thickness t of the tread under the grooves is very thin; thickness t being less than 2 mm and preferably about 1 mm [abstract, col. 4 lines 34-38, FIGURE 1]. The tire is very light weight and has low rolling resistance [abstract, col. 1 lines 40-46, col. 3 lines 58-67, col. 4 lines 2-13, col. 5 lines 1-3, col. 10 lines 27-30]. In an EXAMPLE, Roesgen et al teaches a tire having a weight = 7.2 kg and a tire size = 195/65R15 (section width SW = 195 mm, rim diameter D = 15 inch = 381 mm, aspect ratio = SH/SW = 0.65). Section height SH of this tire is 195 mm x 0.65 = 126.75 mm. Since tire outer diameter OD = 2SH + D, the OD of this tire is 2 x 126.75 mm + 381 mm = 634.5 mm. Hence, the tire size 195/65R15 has the following characteristics:
OD (outer diameter) = 634.5 mm,
SH (section height) = 126.75 mm,
SW (section width) = 195 mm.
Paragraph 14 on page 5 of the specification states that maximum load capacity WL (kg) is calculated using the following two equations:
PNG
media_image1.png
60
279
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein WL = maximum load capacity, DT = tire outer diameter, HT = tire section height and WT = tire section width. The maximum load capacity WL of Roesgen et al’s pneumatic tire having tire size 195/65R15 is therefore equal to 534 kg. Attention is directed to the following calculations:
V = [(OD/2)2 - (OD/2 - SH)2] x π x SW
V = [(634.5/2)2 - (634.5/2 - 126.75)2] x π x 195
V = [100648 - 36290] x π x 195
V = 39426391
WL = 0.000011 x V + 100
WL = 0.000011 x 39426391 + 100
WL = 534 kg.
Thus, Roesgen et al discloses a passenger tire (tire size 195/65R15) having tire weight G = 7.2 kg and maximum load capacity WL = 534 kg. Roesgen et al’s pneumatic tire 195/65R15, therefore, has a ratio tire weight G (kg) / maximum load capacity WL (kg) = 0.0135 [7.2 kg/534 kg = 0.0135]. As to claim 1, this value of 0.0135 falls within the claimed range of 0.0150 or less. Roesgen et al does not recite the tread comprising isoprene based rubber, styrene butadiene rubber, carbon black and silica.
As to claims 1, 5, 8 and 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Roesgen et al’s pneumatic tire having tire size 195/65R15 such that
the tread has at least one rubber layer formed of a rubber composition comprising a rubber component and a reinforcing filler, wherein the rubber component comprises an isoprene-based rubber and a styrene-butadiene rubber, and wherein the reinforcing filler comprises carbon black and silica [claim 1],
a content of the reinforcing filler based on 100 parts by mass of the rubber component is 80 parts by mass or less [claim 5],
a content of silica based on 100 parts by mass of the rubber component is
20 to 80 parts by mass, and a content of silica in 100% by mass of silica and carbon black in total is 50 to 90% by mass [claim 8],
the rubber component further comprises a butadiene rubber [claim 10]
since (1) German 669 teaches providing a pneumatic tire (e.g. passenger size 195/65R15) having a ground contacting tread such that the tread comprises 100 parts rubber component comprising 60-85% by mass styrene butadiene rubber, 15-40% by mass butadiene rubber and additionally natural rubber (isoprene based rubber),
50-150 parts (60-100 parts, e.g. 75 parts) silica and 1-40 parts (5-20 parts, e.g. 5 parts) carbon black so that the tire has desired wet grip performance, abrasion resistance and fuel consumption [machine translation] and optionally (2) Hatanaka et al teaches providing a pneumatic tire (e.g. passenger size 165/60R19) having a tread comprising 100 parts rubber component comprising 20-70 parts styrene butadiene rubber, 0-20 parts natural rubber (isoprene based rubber) wherein the rubber component may also comprise butadiene rubber and 50 to 80 parts filler wherein the filler comprises 30-80 parts silica and wherein the filler may comprise carbon black so that the tire has improved wet performance and rolling resistance [paragraphs 78, 83-90].
As to properties [claims 1, 2 and 11], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the tread of Roesgen et al’s pneumatic tire having tire size 195/65R15 such that:
tan δ at 30°C of the rubber composition is less than or equal 0.15 [claim 1],
complex modulus at 30°C of the rubber composition is 5.0 MPa to 8.0 MPa
[claim 1],
ratio of tan δ at 0°C of the rubber composition to tire weight G (kg) is more than 0.050 and 0.096 or less [claim 1],
the tan δ at 0°C of the rubber composition is 0.35 or more and 0.57 or less
[claim 2],
ratio of tan δ at 0°C of the rubber composition to tire weight G (kg) is more than 0.055 and 0.091 or less [claim 11]
since (1) Roesgen et al teaches providing the pneumatic tire having a tire size of 195/65R15 with a weight such as 7.2 kg, (2) Horiguchi teaches providing a pneumatic tire (passenger size 225/50R17) having a tread comprising a ground contacting cap tread layer and a lower base tread layer such that the ground contacting cap tread layer has modulus E* at 30oC = 4.0 to 8.0 MPa to enhance shearing resistance to improve braking performance and tan δ at 30oC = 0.03 to 0.18 to improve braking performance, ride comfort and durability and to improve rolling resistance [FIGURE 1, paragraphs 29, 34, 36-37], and (3) German 669 teaches providing a rubber composition for a tread of a pneumatic tire (e.g. tire size 195/65R15) such that the tread has tan δ at 30oC =
0.10-0.16 (e.g. 0.13) [EXAMPLES #1-15] and tan δ at 0oC = 0.25 to 0.45 (e.g. 0.41) to obtain good wet grip [machine translation, EXAMPLE #11, TABLE 1].
As to claim 1, 0.13 for tan δ at 30oC (EXAMPLE #11, German 669) falls within the claimed range of less than or equal to 0.15.
As to claim 1, 4.0 to 8.0 MPa for E* at 30oC (Horiguchi et al) overlaps the claimed range of 5.0 to 8.0 MPa. Also, 6.0 MPa (midpoint of Horiguchi et al’s range) falls within the claimed range of 5.0 to 8.0 MPa.
As to claims 1 and 11: When G = 7.2 kg (Roesgen et al) and tan delta at 0oC = 0.41 (EXAMPLE #11, German 669), then ratio tan delta at 0oC / G is 0.057 [0.41/7.2 = 0.057]. This value of 0.057 falls within the claimed range of more than 0.050 and 0.096 or less [claim 1] and falls within the claimed range of more than 0.055 and 0.091 or less [claim 11].
As to claim 2, 0.41 for tan delta at 0oC (EXAMPLE #11, German 669) falls within the claimed range of 0.35 to 0.57.
As to claim 4, German 669’s rubber composition in EXAMPLE #11 inherently has a specific gravity of 1.200 or less. IN ANY EVENT: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the rubber composition suggested by German 669 such that it has a specific gravity or 1.200 or less in view of German 669’s disclosure regarding the ingredients of the rubber composition. Since German 669’s rubber composition is at least generally the same as the claimed rubber composition, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that German 669’s rubber composition has or should have the claimed specific gravity.
As to claim 7, note that when tire weight G/WL = 0.0135 (determined above) and E* at 30oC = 6 MPa (midpoint of Horiguchi’s range), then G/WL x E* = 0.81 [0.0135 x 6 = 0.081]. This value of 0.081 falls within the claimed range of 0.0678 to 0.1049.
As to claim 12, Roesgen et al’s ground contacting tread comprises circumferential grooves [FIGURE 1] and German 669 teaches using the rubber composition for a ground contacting tire tread.
As to claims 12 and 13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Roesgen et al’s pneumatic tire such that the tread has a land part partitioned by a plurality of circumferential grooves, and wherein, when a distance between an extension line of an outermost surface of the land part and an extension line of a deepest part of a groove bottom of the circumferential groove is defined as H, a rubber layer formed of the rubber composition is arranged on at least a part of a region of the distance H from the outermost surface of the land part toward inside in a radial direction [claim 12], two or more rubber layers are present in the region of the distance H from the outermost surface of the land part toward inside in the radial direction, at least one of the two or more rubber layers being formed of the rubber composition [claim 13] since (1) Roesgen et al’s ground contacting tread comprises circumferential grooves [FIGURE 1], (2) German 669 teaches using the rubber composition for a ground contacting tire tread and (3) Horiguchi teaches providing a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising grooves and an upper layer and a lower layer [FIGURE 1] to minimize rolling resistance while maintaining tread rigidity [paragraphs 29, 34-37].
As to claim 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Roesgen et al’s pneumatic passenger tire having tire size of 195/65R15 with a tire weight G such that ratio G/WL is 0.0132 or less since (1) Roesgen et al teaches that the tire having a size of 195/65R15) may have a weight of 6.9 kg [col. 10 lines 11-17] and optionally (2) Europe 117 teaches providing a pneumatic tire (e.g. passenger size 175/70R13) with reduced weight (weight < 5.6 kg), lower rolling resistance and improved pass by noise compared with a conventional tire with the same dimensions by using belt having width = 60-80% ground contact tread width, sidewall thickness upto 2 mm and ratio of load index (breaking load of cords) to pitch of cords being 1.2 to 3.2 [FIGURES 1-3, machine translation]. When G = 6.9 kg (Roesgen et al) and WL = 534 kg (calculated using above two mathematical expressions), then G/WL = 0.0129 [6.9 kg/534 kg = 0.0129]. As to claim 14, this value of 0.0129 falls within the claimed range of 0.0132 or less.
As to claim 15, Roesgen et al ‘s passenger tire (tire size 195/65R15) has maximum load capacity WL = 534 kg (determined above). As to claim 15, this value of 534 kg falls within the claimed range of 450 kg or more.
As to claim 16, the rubber composition for ground contacting tread layer of German 669, Horiguchi and optional Hatanaka et al fails to contain alkylphenol sulfur chloride condensate.
As to claims 17 and 18, see above comments for claims 1, 7 and 16.
more than 30% by mass isoprene based rubber (claims 6 and 9)
4) Claims 1-2, 4-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roesgen et al (US 6,016,858) in view of Miyazaki
(US 2010/0036019), German 669 (DE 102019127669) and Horiguchi (US 2014/0283966) and optionally Europe 117 (EP 652117).
Roesgen et al discloses a pneumatic passenger tire (e.g. tire size 195/65R15) having at least one radial ply, an overlay and a fiberglass belt structure [abstract, FIGURE 1]. The overlay comprises cords selected from the group of aramid, rayon, PEN, PET and PVA [abstract]. A thickness t of the tread under the grooves is very thin; thickness t being less than 2 mm and preferably about 1 mm [abstract, col. 4 lines 34-38, FIGURE 1]. The tire is very light weight and has low rolling resistance [abstract, col. 1 lines 40-46, col. 3 lines 58-67, col. 4 lines 2-13, col. 5 lines 1-3, col. 10 lines 27-30]. In an EXAMPLE, Roesgen et al teaches a tire having a weight = 7.2 kg and a tire size = 195/65R15 (section width SW = 195 mm, rim diameter D = 15 inch = 381 mm, aspect ratio = SH/SW = 0.65). Section height SH of this tire is 195 mm x 0.65 = 126.75 mm. Since tire outer diameter OD = 2SH + D, the OD of this tire is 2 x 126.75 mm + 381 mm = 634.5 mm. Hence, the tire size 195/65R15 has the following characteristics:
OD (outer diameter) = 634.5 mm,
SH (section height) = 126.75 mm,
SW (section width) = 195 mm.
Paragraph 14 on page 5 of the specification states that maximum load capacity WL (kg) is calculated using the following two equations:
PNG
media_image1.png
60
279
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein WL = maximum load capacity, DT = tire outer diameter, HT = tire section height and WT = tire section width. The maximum load capacity WL of Roesgen et al’s pneumatic tire having tire size 195/65R15 is therefore equal to 534 kg. Attention is directed to the following calculations:
V = [(OD/2)2 - (OD/2 - SH)2] x π x SW
V = [(634.5/2)2 - (634.5/2 - 126.75)2] x π x 195
V = [100648 - 36290] x π x 195
V = 39426391
WL = 0.000011 x V + 100
WL = 0.000011 x 39426391 + 100
WL = 534 kg.
Thus, Roesgen et al discloses a passenger tire (tire size 195/65R15) having tire weight G = 7.2 kg and maximum load capacity WL = 534 kg. Roesgen et al’s pneumatic tire 195/65R15, therefore, has a ratio tire weight G (kg) / maximum load capacity WL (kg) = 0.0135 [7.2 kg/534 kg = 0.0135]. As to claim 1, this value of 0.0135 falls within the claimed range of 0.0150 or less. Roesgen et al does not recite the tread comprising isoprene based rubber, styrene butadiene rubber, carbon black and silica.
As to claims 1, 5-6 and 8-10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Roesgen et al’s pneumatic tire having tire size 195/65R15 such that
the tread has at least one rubber layer formed of a rubber composition comprising a rubber component and a reinforcing filler, wherein the rubber component comprises an isoprene-based rubber and a styrene-butadiene rubber, and wherein the reinforcing filler comprises carbon black and silica [claim 1],
a content of the reinforcing filler based on 100 parts by mass of the rubber component is 80 parts by mass or less [claim 5],
the rubber component comprises 30% by mass or more of the isoprene-based rubber and 20% by mass or more of the styrene-butadiene rubber [claim 6],
a content of silica based on 100 parts by mass of the rubber component is
20 to 80 parts by mass, and a content of silica in 100% by mass of silica and carbon black in total is 50 to 90% by mass [claim 8],
the rubber component comprises 30 to 80% by mass of an isoprene-based rubber and 20 to 70% by mass of a styrene-butadiene rubber [claim 9],
the rubber component further comprises a butadiene rubber [claim 10]
since Miyazaki teaches providing a tire having a cap tread comprising a rubber composition comprising 100 parts rubber component comprising 30-80% by mass modified styrene butadiene rubber and 20-70% by mass at least one rubber [e.g. natural rubber (“isoprene based rubber”) and butadiene rubber], 10 to 100 parts silica and 2-50 parts carbon black wherein rubber composition for cap tire tread in EXAMPLE #1 comprises 70 parts modified styrene butadiene rubber, 30 parts natural rubber, 45 parts silica and 5 parts carbon black (90% of reinforcing filler being silica) and wherein styrene butadiene rubber provides superior grip property such as brake performance [paragraph 25], natural rubber provides superior fracture strength and low heat build up [paragraph 27], silica provides superior grip performance and fracture strength [paragraph 53] and carbon black prevents deterioration of rubber by ultraviolet rays [paragraph 60].
As to properties [claims 1, 2 and 11], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the tread of Roesgen et al’s pneumatic tire having tire size 195/65R15 such that:
tan δ at 30°C of the rubber composition is less than or equal 0.15 [claim 1],
complex modulus at 30°C of the rubber composition is 5.0 MPa to 8.0 MPa
[claim 1],
ratio of tan δ at 0°C of the rubber composition to tire weight G (kg) is more than 0.050 and 0.096 or less [claim 1],
the tan δ at 0°C of the rubber composition is 0.35 or more and 0.57 or less
[claim 2],
ratio of tan δ at 0°C of the rubber composition to tire weight G (kg) is more than 0.055 and 0.091 or less [claim 11]
since (1) Roesgen et al teaches providing the pneumatic tire having a tire size of 195/65R15 with a weight such as 7.2 kg, (2) Miyazaki teaches providing the rubber composition such that the cap tire tread has tan δ at 30oC being 0.071 to 0.115 [EXAMPLES 1-12, TABLE 1]; (3) German 669 teaches providing a rubber composition for a tread of a pneumatic tire (e.g. tire size 195/65R15) such that the tread has tan δ at 0oC = 0.25 to 0.45 (e.g. 0.41) to obtain good wet grip [machine translation, EXAMPLE #11 in TABLE 1] and (4) Horiguchi teaches providing a pneumatic tire (passenger size 225/50R17) having a tread comprising a ground contacting cap tread layer and a lower base tread layer such that the ground contacting cap tread layer has modulus E* at 30oC = 4.0 to 8.0 MPa to enhance shearing resistance to improve braking performance and tan δ at 30oC = 0.03 to 0.18 to improve braking performance, ride comfort and durability and to improve rolling resistance [FIGURE 1, paragraphs 29, 34, 36-37].
As to claim 1, 0.071 to 0.115 for tan δ at 30oC (Miyazaki) falls within the claimed range of less than or equal to 0.15.
As to claim 1, 4.0 to 8.0 MPa for E* at 30oC (Horiguchi et al) overlaps the claimed range of 5.0 to 8.0 MPa. Also, 6.0 MPa (midpoint of Horiguchi et al’s range) falls within the claimed range of 5.0 to 8.0 MPa.
As to claims 1 and 11: When G = 7.2 kg (Roesgen et al) and tan delta at 0oC = 0.41 (EXAMPLE #11, German 669), then ratio tan delta at 0oC / G is 0.057 [0.41/7.2 = 0.057]. This value of 0.057 falls within the claimed range of more than 0.050 and 0.096 or less [claim 1] and falls within the claimed range of more than 0.055 and 0.091 or less [claim 11].
As to claim 2, 0.41 for tan delta at 0oC (EXAMPLE #11, German 669) falls within the claimed range of 0.35 to 0.57.
As to claim 4, Miyazaki’s rubber composition in EXAMPLE #1 inherently has a specific gravity of 1.200 or less. IN ANY EVENT: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the rubber composition suggested by Miyazaki such that it has a specific gravity or 1.200 or less in view of Miyazaki’s disclosure regarding the ingredients of the rubber composition. Since Miyazaki’s rubber composition is at least generally the same as the claimed rubber composition, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that Miyazaki’s rubber composition has or should have the claimed specific gravity.
As to claim 7, note that when tire weight G/WL = 0.0135 (determined above) and E* at 30oC = 6 MPa (midpoint of Horiguchi’s range), then G/WL x E* = 0.81 [0.0135 x 6 = 0.081]. This value of 0.081 falls within the claimed range of 0.0678 to 0.1049.
As to claim 12, Roesgen et al’s ground contacting tread comprises circumferential grooves [FIGURE 1] and Miyazaki teaches using the rubber composition for a ground contacting tire tread.
As to claims 12 and 13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Roesgen et al’s pneumatic tire such that the tread has a land part partitioned by a plurality of circumferential grooves, and wherein, when a distance between an extension line of an outermost surface of the land part and an extension line of a deepest part of a groove bottom of the circumferential groove is defined as H, a rubber layer formed of the rubber composition is arranged on at least a part of a region of the distance H from the outermost surface of the land part toward inside in a radial direction [claim 12], two or more rubber layers are present in the region of the distance H from the outermost surface of the land part toward inside in the radial direction, at least one of the two or more rubber layers being formed of the rubber composition [claim 13] since (1) Roesgen et al’s ground contacting tread comprises circumferential grooves [FIGURE 1], (2) Miyazaki teaches using the rubber composition for a ground contacting tire tread and (3) Horiguchi teaches providing a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising grooves and an upper layer and a lower layer [FIGURE 1] to minimize rolling resistance while maintaining tread rigidity [paragraphs 29, 34-37].
As to claim 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Roesgen et al’s pneumatic passenger tire having tire size of 195/65R15 with a tire weight G such that ratio G/WL is 0.0132 or less since (1) Roesgen et al teaches that the tire having a size of 195/65R15) may have a weight of 6.9 kg [col. 10 lines 11-17] and optionally (2) Europe 117 teaches providing a pneumatic tire (e.g. passenger size 175/70R13) with reduced weight (weight < 5.6 kg), lower rolling resistance and improved pass by noise compared with a conventional tire with the same dimensions by using belt having width = 60-80% ground contact tread width, sidewall thickness upto 2 mm and ratio of load index (breaking load of cords) to pitch of cords being 1.2 to 3.2 [FIGURES 1-3, machine translation]. When G = 6.9 kg (Roesgen et al) and WL = 534 kg (calculated using above two mathematical expressions), then G/WL = 0.0129 [6.9 kg/534 kg = 0.0129]. As to claim 14, this value of 0.0129 falls within the claimed range of 0.0132 or less.
As to claim 15, Roesgen et al ‘s passenger tire (tire size 195/65R15) has maximum load capacity WL = 534 kg (determined above). As to claim 15, this value of 534 kg falls within the claimed range of 450 kg or more.
As to claim 17, see comments for claims 1 and 7.
Remarks
5) Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2 and 4-18 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 response 7-29-25 of the interview on 7-22-25, examiner comments: INTERVIEW RECORD OK.
6) No claim is allowed.
7) 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
8) 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 at 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
December 13, 2025