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 .
Claim Interpretation
The application as presented along with Request for Continued Examination will be interpreted in following manner:
Applicant’s claim 1 requires brominated anionic vinyl aromatic chain transfer agent with bromine content of “about” 70%. The examiner consulted the specification to learn applicant’s definition of term “about” but none were found. Consequently in the light of the specification, term “about” is interpreted as including polymer having bromine content slightly lower than 70%.
Claim 1 requires chain transfer agent to be vinyl aromatic polymer. Styrene is a vinyl aromatic compound; consequently brominated anionic polystyrenes meet the limitation of brominated anionic vinyl aromatic chain transfer agent. This also means that that the reference of Thomas as applied in the first office action on the merits should not have been changed. While Thomas may not say that his styrenic polymer is a chain transfer agents, the compounds and their properties are mutually exclusive.
Claim 1 further discloses a proviso such that if 1,3,5-triazine is used as glow suppressant, it is substituted with amino groups at 2, 4, and 6 positions. Applicants basically claim melamine polyphosphate in claim 1, which is also known not only as anti-dripping agent but a synergist for the phosphorous based flame retardants and glow suppressant. While prior art of record does not explicitly state the use of melamine polyphosphate as glow suppressant, compounds and their properties are mutually exclusive, especially when the chemical structure of the compound is exactly the same.
Furthermore, with respect to glow suppressant, the breadth of applicants claim is very broad. As recited, any compound having claims functional groups such as piperidine, triazole, piperazine and morpholine will suppress glow. Consequently, any compound having claimed functional group will meet the claim.
With respect to the scope of independent claims, term flame retardant additive composition, is so broad that it includes a molded product to which the flame retardant additives are incorporated into.
Response to Arguments
In their response dated 2/ 4/2026 the applicants argued following:
De Schryver does not teach claimed brominated anionic chain transfer vinyl aromatic polymer having bromine content of 70% or more.
Response: Examiner disagrees, and the rejection will be restated because De Schryver teaches brominated anionic sytrenic polymer, which consistent with claim interpretation above meets the definition of chain transfer agent. Applicants are welcome to view claims 32-35 of De Schryver, which disclose bromine content of 60-71%. Even if De Schryver taught slightly lower content, applicants do not claim 70% or more. The claims clearly state “about 70% or more”. Term “about” includes content smaller than 70%, the scope of which, if not the defined, is interpreted in the light of the specification as originally filed and dependent claims, however the neither one is read into independent claims.
Consequently with respect to dependent claims the narrower ranges are also expressed utilizing term about: “about 70wt% to about 77wt%” or “about 72wt% to 77wt%”. Consequently term “about” allows content that is slightly lower. This includes content as low as 68% unless an amendment is made that will clearly and explicitly disclose actual range.
With respect to the disclosure of Ao, applicants are correct.
Ao discloses process of making brominated styrene polymers and therefore it is pertinent to one of ordinary skill in the art, because one has to know how such polymers are made before they are even utilized. This is even more pertinent because that is how applicants make their brominated polystyrenes. The point of using Ao, was to show how the content of bromine can be adjusted based on the intended use. This is especially when the De Schryver as well as other references under broadest reasonable interpretation disclose bromine content “at least 30%” or “at least 50%” without setting forth upper value until preferred embodiments are disclosed. The guidance in Ao states that if practitioner chooses to bromination content to be 70% the molar ratio of bromine to styrene monomer is 3:1 and any excess if desired is suitable. Consequently Ao clearly shows how to obtain styrenic polymers with bromine content of at least 70%. Ratios as high as 5:1 are also disclosed. One of ordinary skill in the art would also understand that the higher content of bromine influences flame retardancy and thermal stability. Better flame retardant properties are enough reason to increase bromine content of the styrenic polymer.
With respect to Thomas, claim 33 of Thomas has bromine content of up to 71 which not only is requirement of the instant independent claims but also falls within “about 72”
Consequently rejections of record will be restated to reflect the amendments to the claims, which includes new references identified during updates search. At this point the prior art of Schryver will be withdrawn and may be reapplied later if necessary.
Note: not all amendments to the claims were properly marked up. While examiner was able to easily figure out what the changes to the claims were, not all examiners will accept such claims. Examiner urges applicants review the amended claims before they are forwarded to the USPTO for consideration.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (WO 2006/019414) in view of Andrews (US 2017/0134613)
With respect to claim 1, Thomas discloses a polyolefin flame retardant composition [0042] which comprises:
Brominated anionic styrenic polymer (Abstract), wherein bromine content is 60-71% (claim 35 of Tomas) which encompasses claimed content of “about 70% or more”.
A triazine phenoxy triazine flame retardant utilized in 98:2 to 2:98 ratio with brominated
The triazine flame retardant of Thomas is one of many flame retardants, but not the only one.
In the same field of endeavor Andrews discloses polyolefin flame retardant composition which various stabilizers such as piperazines and triazoles, along with flame retardants which include brominated styrenic polymers [0077].
Andrews discloses that melamine polyphosphate is also excellent flame retardant and it is based on triazine ring substituted with amino groups in 2,4 and 6 positions.
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize melamine polyphosphate as the triazine in the teachings of Thomas and thereby obtain the claimed invention. Melamine polyphosphate has the same triazine functionality which would also suppress the glow as required by the instant invention and still impart flame retardant properties.
With respect to claim 5, Thomas discloses composition wherein the additives include antimony trioxide as preferred synergist [0047] and talc [0064], other flame retardants such as zinc borates, as well as fillers and pigments. While the actual amount of talc is not discloses, white pigments within masterbatch are utilizes in amount of 25% which should also be the amount for talc as white pigment as well. Antimony trioxide compounds in examples are utilized between 4-9 parts (see tables). Wherein zinc borate meets the limitation of instant claim 9.
In the event the applicants do not agree with examiner’s interpretation of the content of Talc, Andrews discloses typical amounts of fillers such as talcs in polyolefin composition that utilize brominated styrenic resin, antimony trioxide, zinc borate and melamine polyphosphate. This range is 5-60 parts [0076].
Consequently it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize the amount of talc of Thomas in the same amount as the white pigment, since both compounds would color the composition white. Additionally, such amounts are further supported by Andrews as conventional amounts.
Claims 13, 17, 19 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (WO 2006/019414) in view of Andrews (US 2017/0134613)
With respect to claim 13, Thomas discloses a polyolefin flame retardant composition [0042] comprising an additives. The additives are combined in a masterbatch [0053] and include:
Brominated anionic styrenic polymer (Abstract), wherein bromine content is 60-71% (claim 35 of Tomas) which encompasses claimed content of “about 70% or more”.
A triazine phenoxy triazine flame retardant utilized in 98:2 to 2:98 ratio with brominated
The triazine flame retardant of Thomas is one of many flame retardants, but not the only one.
In the same field of endeavor Andrews discloses polyolefin flame retardant composition which various stabilizers such as piperazines and triazoles, along with flame retardants which include brominated styrenic polymers [0077].
Andrews discloses that melamine polyphosphate is also excellent flame retardant and it is based on triazine ring substituted with amino groups in 2,4 and 6 positions.
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize melamine polyphosphate as the triazine in the teachings of Thomas and thereby obtain the claimed invention. Melamine polyphosphate has the same triazine functionality which would also suppress the glow as required by the instant invention and still impart flame retardant properties.
With respect to claims 17 and 21, Thomas discloses composition wherein the additives include antimony trioxide as preferred synergist [0047] and talc [0064], other flame retardants such as zinc borates, as well as fillers and pigments. While the actual amount of talc is not discloses, white pigments within masterbatch are utilizes in amount of 25% which should also be the amount for talc as white pigment as well. Antimony trioxide compounds in examples are utilized between 4-9 parts (see tables). Wherein zinc borate meets the limitation of instant claim 19.
In the event the applicants do not agree with examiner’s interpretation of the content of Talc, Andrews discloses typical amounts of fillers such as talcs in polyolefin composition that utilize brominated styrenic resin, antimony trioxide, zinc borate and melamine polyphosphate. This range is 5-60 parts [0076].
Consequently it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize the amount of talc of Thomas in the same amount as the white pigment, since both compounds would color the composition white. Additionally such amounts are further supported by Andrews as conventional amounts.
Claims 25, 29, 30 and 32 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (WO 2006/019414) in view of Andrews (US 2017/0134613)
With respect to claims 25, 29 and 30, Thomas discloses a polyolefin flame retardant composition [0042] comprising an additives. The additives are combined in a masterbatch [0053] and include:
Brominated anionic styrenic polymer (Abstract), wherein bromine content is 60-71% (claim 35 of Tomas) which encompasses claimed content of “about 70% or more” and meets requirement of component b)
Talc [0064]
A triazine phenoxy triazine flame retardant utilized in 98:2 to 2:98 ratio with brominated
The triazine flame retardant of Thomas is one of many flame retardants, but not the only one.
In the same field of endeavor Andrews discloses polyolefin flame retardant composition which various stabilizers such as piperazines and triazoles, along with flame retardants which include brominated styrenic polymers [0077].
Andrews discloses that melamine polyphosphate is also excellent flame retardant and it is based on triazine ring substituted with amino groups in 2,4 and 6 positions.
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize melamine polyphosphate as the triazine in the teachings of Thomas and thereby obtain the claimed invention. Melamine polyphosphate has the same triazine functionality which would also suppress the glow as required by the instant invention and still impart flame retardant properties.
Thomas discloses composition wherein the additives include antimony trioxide as preferred synergist [0047] and talc [0064], other flame retardants such as zinc borates, as well as fillers and pigments. While the actual amount of talc is not discloses, white pigments within masterbatch are utilizes in amount of 25% which should also be the amount for talc as white pigment as well. Antimony trioxide compounds in examples are utilized between 4-9 parts (see tables). The content of talc would further meet the limitation of claim 29. Wherein zinc borate meets the limitation of instant claim 32.
In the event the applicants do not agree with examiner’s interpretation of the content of Talc, Andrews discloses typical amounts of fillers such as talcs in polyolefin composition that utilize brominated styrenic resin, antimony trioxide, zinc borate and melamine polyphosphate. This range is 5-60 parts [0076].
Consequently it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize the amount of talc of Thomas in the same amount as the white pigment, since both compounds would color the composition white. Additionally such amounts are further supported by Andrews as conventional amounts.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (WO 2006/019414) in view of Andrews (US 2017/0134613) in further view of Layman (WO 2009/148464).
Discussion of rejection over Thomas and Andrews from paragraph 3 of this office action is incorporated here by reference.
While Thomas discloses examples of various compounds comprising high bromine content, Thomas does not limit his invention to only these compounds, but allows other components and chemicals to be utilized [0079] as long as the mechanical properties are maintained.
Lyman, co-worker in Albemarle corporation, provided another compounds that meets the requirement of Thomas, which is another flame retardant which contains at minimum 3 bromines per aryl group. The resulting bromine content is the same as the compounds of Thomas. Lyman discloses styrenic polymer having bromine content of at least 72% (claim 1). Number average molecular weight is in a range of 1070-8200 [claim 6].
Similarly, the brominated styrene of Lyman, when utilized in the polymeric compositions which improve the same mechanical properties as those of Thomas adversely affecting the flame retardancy of the of the molded article.
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize the brominated polymer of Lyman in the composition of Thomas and thereby obtain the claimed invention for two reasons.
First, the compound of Lyman would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at a composition which maintains both flame retardancy and excellent mechanical properties.
Second, The combination of two compositions, each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to for a third composition that is to be used for the very same purpose may be prima facie obvious. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445, 169 USPQ 423, 426 (CCPA 1971). Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp. 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
In instant case both polymers of Thomas and Lyman are flame retardant compound that result in an article having excellent flame retardant properties and good mechanical properties.
Claims 36, 40, 41, 43 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (WO 2006/019414) in view of Andrews (US 2017/0134613)
With respect to claims 36 and 41, Thomas discloses a polyolefin flame retardant composition [0042] comprising an additives. The additives are combined in a masterbatch [0053] and include:
Brominated anionic styrenic polymer (Abstract), wherein bromine content is 60-71% (claim 35 of Tomas) which encompasses claimed content of “about 70% or more” and meets requirement of component b)
Talc [0064]
A triazine phenoxy triazine flame retardant utilized in 98:2 to 2:98 ratio with brominated
The triazine flame retardant of Thomas is one of many flame retardants, but not the only one.
In the same field of endeavor Andrews discloses polyolefin flame retardant composition which various stabilizers such as piperazines and triazoles, along with flame retardants which include brominated styrenic polymers [0077].
Andrews discloses that melamine polyphosphate is also excellent flame retardant and it is based on triazine ring substituted with amino groups in 2,4 and 6 positions.
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize melamine polyphosphate as the triazine in the teachings of Thomas and thereby obtain the claimed invention. Melamine polyphosphate has the same triazine functionality which would also suppress the glow as required by the instant invention and still impart flame retardant properties.
Thomas discloses composition wherein the additives include antimony trioxide as preferred synergist [0047] and talc [0064], other flame retardants such as zinc borates, as well as fillers and pigments. While the actual amount of talc is not discloses, white pigments within masterbatch are utilizes in amount of 25% which should also be the amount for talc as white pigment as well. Antimony trioxide compounds in examples are utilized between 4-9 parts (see tables). The content of talc would further meet the limitation of claim 40. Wherein zinc borate meets the limitation of instant claim 43.
In the event the applicants do not agree with examiner’s interpretation of the content of Talc, Andrews discloses typical amounts of fillers such as talcs in polyolefin composition that utilize brominated styrenic resin, antimony trioxide, zinc borate and melamine polyphosphate. This range is 5-60 parts [0076].
Consequently it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize the amount of talc of Thomas in the same amount as the white pigment, since both compounds would color the composition white. Additionally such amounts are further supported by Andrews as conventional amounts.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (WO 2006/019414) in view of Andrews (US 2017/0134613) in further view of Layman (WO 2009/148464).
Discussion of Thomas and Andrews from paragraph 5 of this office action is incorporated here by reference.
While Thomas discloses examples of various compounds comprising high bromine content, Thomas does not limit his invention to only these compounds, but allows other components and chemicals to be utilized [0079] as long as the mechanical properties are maintained.
Lyman, co-worker in Albemarle corporation, provided another compounds that meets the requirement of Thomas, which is another flame retardant which contains at minimum 3 bromines per aryl group. The resulting bromine content is the same as the compounds of Thomas. Lyman discloses styrenic polymer having bromine content of at least 72% (claim 1). Number average molecular weight is in a range of 1070-8200 [claim 6].
Similarly, the brominated styrene of Lyman, when utilized in the polymeric compositions which improve the same mechanical properties as those of Thomas adversely affecting the flame retardancy of the of the molded article.
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize the brominated polymer of Lyman in the composition of Thomas and thereby obtain the claimed invention for two reasons.
First, the compound of Lyman would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at a composition which maintains both flame retardancy and excellent mechanical properties.
Second, The combination of two compositions, each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to for a third composition that is to be used for the very same purpose may be prima facie obvious. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445, 169 USPQ 423, 426 (CCPA 1971). Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp. 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
In instant case both polymers of Thomas and Lyman are flame retardant compound that result in an article having excellent flame retardant properties and good mechanical properties.
Claims 47 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai (JP 04-337343 translation attached) in view of Layman (WO 2009/14864)
With respect to claims 47 and 52, Hari discloses polyolefin composition comprising flame retardant system which includes:
- brominated styrenic polymer which comprises at least 3 bromines per each styrene unit (p. 1)
- antimony trioxide in amount of 1-10 wt.% (claim 1)
- a filler such as talc [0009] wherein talc is also exemplified.
While Hari discloses that the styrenic polymer has to have at least 3 bromines per each styrene unit, its teachings fall short of other details.
Layman discloses brominated styrenic polymers as flame retardants which contain 3-4.6 bromines per each aryl group (here styrene group) [0034].
The styrenic polymer of Layman with at least 3 bromine units per styrene functionality results in a polymer that has at least 72% of bromine content (claim 1). Number average molecular weight is in a range of 1070-8200 [claim 6]. The molecular weight limitation also meets instant claim 52. Examples show the highest bromine content of 77.5 (bromination example 26) and 78.4 (bromination example 4).
With respect to the amount of the brominated flame retardant, which limitation can be read in two way. Since both talc and antimony trioxide are flame retardants, then the content of the flame retardant can be referring only to brominated styrenic polymer or all three the polymer, talc and antimony trioxide. Either one would meet the claims.
Hirai discloses 3-20% of brominated component and 1-10 parts of antimony trioxide [0006]. Flame retardant total is therefor up to 30 % with polyolefin content of 70-96 %.
In the light of the above disclosure it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize the brominated styrene of Lyman in the teachings of Hirai. Hirai clearly states, that the styrene polymer utilized therein has to have at least 3 bromines per each styrene unit, and this is exactly what Lyman discloses.
Claims 54, 59, 61 and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (WO 2006/019414) in view of Andrews (US 2017/0134613) in further view of Layman (WO 2009/148464).
With respect to claims 54, 61, Thomas discloses a polyolefin flame retardant composition [0042] which comprises:
Brominated anionic styrenic polymer (Abstract), wherein bromine content is 60-71% (claim 35 of Tomas) which encompasses claimed content of “about 70% or more”.
A triazine phenoxy triazine flame retardant utilized in 98:2 to 2:98 ratio with brominated
The triazine flame retardant of Thomas is one of many flame retardants, but not the only one.
In the same field of endeavor Andrews discloses polyolefin flame retardant composition which various stabilizers such as piperazines and triazoles, along with flame retardants which include brominated styrenic polymers [0077].
Andrews discloses that melamine polyphosphate is also excellent flame retardant and it is based on triazine ring substituted with amino groups in 2,4 and 6 positions. Melamine polyphosphate meets the limitation of instant claim 61.
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize melamine polyphosphate as the triazine in the teachings of Thomas and thereby obtain the claimed invention. Melamine polyphosphate has the same triazine functionality which would also suppress the glow as required by the instant invention and still impart flame retardant properties.
With respect to claim 59, Thomas discloses composition wherein the additives include antimony trioxide as preferred synergist [0047] and talc [0064], other flame retardants such as zinc borates, as well as fillers and pigments. While the actual amount of talc is not discloses, white pigments within masterbatch are utilizes in amount of 25% which should also be the amount for talc as white pigment as well. Antimony trioxide compounds in examples are utilized between 4-9 parts (see tables).
In the event the applicants do not agree with examiner’s interpretation of the content of Talc, Andrews discloses typical amounts of fillers such as talcs in polyolefin composition that utilize brominated styrenic resin, antimony trioxide, zinc borate and melamine polyphosphate. This range is 5-60 parts [0076].
Consequently it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize the amount of talc of Thomas in the same amount as the white pigment, since both compounds would color the composition white. Additionally, such amounts are further supported by Andrews as conventional amounts.
With respect to claim 63, Thomas discloses use of another brominated flame retardant which comprises at least 3 or more bromines per aromatic ring of the compound utilized [0021]. Thomas is adding this type of compound so that the effective flame retardancy can be achieved [0029]. What Thomas noticed is that the additional compounds having high bromine content such as Saytex BT-102E (83% bromine) examples 1-3 and FR1808 (73% bromine) examples 13-15 (just to pick a few)
The examples using these compounds with polymer such as polypropylene (see examples) have higher tensile strength, higher notched Izod impact strength, have V-0 rating without sacrificing the mechanical properties.
While Thomas discloses examples of various compounds comprising high bromine content, Thomas does not limit his invention to only these compounds, but allows other components and chemicals to be utilized [0079] as long as the mechanical properties are maintained.
Lyman, co-worker in Albemarle corporation, provided another compounds that meets the requirement of Thomas, which is another flame retardant which contains at minimum 3 bromines per aryl group. The resulting bromine content is the same as the compounds of Thomas. Lyman discloses styrenic polymer having bromine content of at least 72% (claim 1). Number average molecular weight is in a range of 1070-8200 [claim 6].
Similarly, the brominated styrene of Lyman, when utilized in the polymeric compositions which improve the same mechanical properties as those of Thomas adversely affecting the flame retardancy of the of the molded article.
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize the brominated polymer of Lyman in the composition of Thomas and thereby obtain the claimed invention for two reasons.
First, the compound of Lyman would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at a composition which maintains both flame retardancy and excellent mechanical properties.
Second, The combination of two compositions, each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to for a third composition that is to be used for the very same purpose may be prima facie obvious. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445, 169 USPQ 423, 426 (CCPA 1971). Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp. 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
In instant case both polymers of Thomas and Lyman are flame retardant compound that result in an article having excellent flame retardant properties and good mechanical properties.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATARZYNA I KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-1127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 5712701046. 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.
/KATARZYNA I KOLB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767 March 13, 2026