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 1-18 in the reply filed on 10/15/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-22 are being withdrawn from further examination.
The requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made Final.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites the limitation "the substrate is steel or carbide" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It is noted claim 5 depends from claim 1.
Claims 12 and 13 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.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 13 is rejected as depending from a rejected claim.
Claim 15 is 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.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 16 and 17 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.
It is not clear as to whether the claims intend to recite the presence of a braze material positively or not; this is because no recitation of a braze material has been made prior to claims 16 and 17. It is suggested to amend line 1 of claim 16 to “The abrasive structure of claim 1, further comprising a braze, wherein a braze content is 10% to” and line 1 of claim 17 to “The abrasive structure according to claim 1, further comprising a braze, wherein a braze content is 25% to”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5 further limits the material of a substrate; however, claim 1 does not recite any substrate. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
For the purpose of examination, it is assumed claim 5 depends from claim 2; however, appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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(s) 1, 6-9 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 4,606,738 to Hayden.
With respect to claim 1, Hayden teaches composite abrasive particles comprising a core and having a coating of crystals on the core, wherein the composite abrasive particles are used in a grinding element (abstract, col. 1, lines 10-14 and 36-41 and 60-68; col. 7, lines 9-30). The grinding element is taken to read on the claimed “abrasive structure”. Hayden teaches a thickness of from about 0.1 to 10 microns for the silicon carbide coating (col. 6, lines 36-41) wherein silicon carbide is present in crystal form (col. 4, lines 36-41). Thus, the size of the crystals of the silicon carbide coating cannot be outside of the 0.1-10 micron range, and as such, it cannot be larger than 10 microns. Hayden does not teach the size of the core except in the examples, where Hayden teaches a size of 140/170 mesh (i.e. about 88-105 microns) for a diamond core particle which is coated with the silicon carbide (col. 8, lines 35-40). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the general teachings of Hayden in order to have a core size of about 88-105 microns, as that taught in the examples, motivated by the fact that because the preferred embodiment of the reference teaches a core size of about 88-105, it is expected of this size to be applicable to the core size as generally taught by the reference. As such, the reference is seen to render a “larger size abrasive” forming the core with “a smaller size abrasive attached on an exterior of the core” obvious.
With respect to claim 6, Hayden is directed to the use of their composite abrasive particles in grinding elements such as grinding wheel (col. 1, lines 35-40; col. 7, lines 9-15; col. 9, lines 15-19).
With respect to claims 7-9, as noted above, under the rejection of claim 1, Hayden teaches a thickness of from about 0.1 to 10 microns for the silicon carbide coating (col. 6, lines 36-41) wherein silicon carbide is present in crystal form (col. 4, lines 36-41). In the examples, Hayden teaches a size of 140/170 mesh (i.e. about 88-105 microns) for the core particle to be coated silicon carbide (col. 8, lines 35-40).
The ratio of the average size of the larger size abrasive to the smaller size abrasive is would fully overlap with the claimed ranges of 2-300 as claimed in claim 7, 2-30 as claimed in claim 8, and 2-10 as claimed in claim 9.
MPEP 2144.05 states “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).
With respect to claim 11, Hayden teaches abrasives such as diamond, silicon carbide, cubic boron nitride, aluminum oxide, and more (col. 3, lines 22-24; col. 4, lines 28-41; col. 7, lines 27-30; col. 8, lines 35-40).
With respect to claim 12, Hayden teaches the option of having metals such as copper or silver within the composite particles (col. 8, lines 1-2).
With respect to claim 13, it is noted that “up to 50%” includes any and all values below 50%; thus, the fact that Hayden does not disclose any porosity for said metals of lines 1-2 of column 8, is taken to mean that the porosity of said examples is zero which is within the claimed range.
With respect to claim 14, Hayden renders chemical bonding between the core and the coating crystals obvious because the reference teaches a chemical reaction during the process of formation of silicon carbide of the coating which is the result of a reaction between silicon and a carbon source, not coming from the core (col. 4, lines 1-41).
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0159806 to Wu et al. (hereafter Wu).
With respect to claim 1, Wu discloses an abrasive tool, used for abrading a workpiece, including abrasive grains, wherein the abrasive grains can be made of a composite material such as particles having a core material and a coating, wherein the core material and coating are made of different materials, and the core is generally made of abrasive or superabrasive materials, and the coating can be in direct contact with the core, and be chemically bonded to the core (abstract, [0020], [0040]). Although, Wu may not expressly and/or literally disclose a size for the core or the coating, the reference discloses a concentration of between about 5 to about 20 wt% of the composite particle being the coating. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have identified the size of the coating to be smaller than the core because the amount of the coating material, at the highest level, is only about 20wt% of the total composite particle.
Wu discloses materials such as ceramics such as oxides, nitrides, borides, and carbides for the coating ([0041]), and oxides includes materials such as alumina which have been disclosed in the original disclosure of the present Application under examination as abrasive materials (see specification, page 6, lines 20-24).
With respect to claim 2, Wu discloses the core of the bonded abrasive tool, i.e. the wheel, comprising of materials such as steel ([0017]-[0019]). The core is where the individual abrasive segments, which contain the particles comprising a core and a coating and a bond material, are assembled/attached on. The core of the tool is taken to read on the substrate.
With respect to claim 4, Wu discloses the use of their particles comprising a core and a coating in individual abrasive segments as shown in Figure 2 (Figure 2, [0017]-[0019]). As shown in Figure 2, there is a thickness to the abrasive segment, and considering the fact that the size of the abrasive grains can be as small as 50 nm ([0026]), it is reasonable to expect to have abrasive particles dispersed in more than one layer within each abrasive segment.
With respect to claim 5, Wu discloses the core of the bonded abrasive tool, i.e. the wheel, comprising of materials such as steel ([0017] and [0019]).
With respect to claim 6, Wu is directed to the use of composite abrasive grains in an abrasive article such as a grinding wheel ([0017]-[0018]).
With respect to claims 7-9, as noted above, Wu discloses the content of the coating to be within about 5-20 wt% of the total weight of the composite particle ([0040]) which means any amount between 80 to 95wt% of the composite particle should be the weight of the core. Thus, Wu renders a ratio of 2-300 as claimed in claim 7, a ratio of 2-30 as claimed in claim 8, and a ratio of 2-10 as claimed in claim 9 obvious.
With respect to claim 10, although Wu may not disclose the amount of the coating and core in the composite in volume percent, the fact that the ratio of the smaller size abrasive to the larger size abrasive can be within the wide range of 0.01 to 35 vol% would make it reasonable to see that there is a high probability of some overlapping with this claimed range, based on the teachings of Wu.
With respect to claim 11, Wu discloses the use of superabrasive materials in the core, and it has been known that materials such as diamond is considered superabrasive ([0025] and [0055]). Also, Wu discloses ceramic materials such as oxides such as alumina for the coating ([0041]). Thus, the reference renders claim 11 obvious.
With respect to claim 12, Wu discloses the presence/use of reaction agents such as silica in their abrasive articles ([0032], [0034]), and silica is the major component of glass. Thus, Wu renders the claim obvious.
With respect to claim 13, Wu discloses the reaction agent to contain a certain amount of porosity, but does not expressly disclose how much it is ([0036]). However, Wu, also, discloses that the finally formed abrasive article has porosity within the range of about 5-30 vol% ([0038]); thus, it is reasonable to expect that the porosity of the reaction agent to be less than, at least, 30 vol%, if not less than 5 vol%. Therefore, the claimed recitation of “up to 50%” for porosity for the reaction agent, i.e. claimed “materials not primarily used as abrasives” is rendered obvious.
With respect to claim 14, as noted above, Wu discloses the coating can be in direct contact with the core, and be chemically bonded to the core ([0040]).
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 4,954,140 to Kawashima et al. (hereinafter Kawashima) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0118237 to Krzysik et al. (hereinafter Krzysik).
With respect to claim 1, Kawashima discloses composite spherical-particle abrasive comprising spherical particles, which are at the core, and abrasive particles being coated on the spherical-particles (Kawashima, abstract and Figures). Kawashima discloses polymer beads of materials such as nylon or polyethylene as the spherical particle and other materials such as alumina, diamond, silicon carbide, chromium oxide, iron oxide, and cerium oxide as the abrasive particles on the spherical-particle (Kawashima, col. 2, lines 50-68). The composite particle taught by Kawashima is abrasive, and the smaller particle coated on the core particle are also abrasive, as disclosed by Kawashima. Kawashima, in the examples, discloses the use of nylon 12 and polyethylene as the core spherical particle.
However, Kawashima does not disclose the polymer beads are abrasive.
Krzysik, directed to cleaning wipes, discloses polymers such as polyethylene beads and nylon 12 as abrasive agent (Krzysik, [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kawashima with the teachings of Krzysik in order to identify the nylon or polyethylene beads as abrasive due to the fact that they have been recognized as abrasive agent in Krzysik.
With respect to claim 2, the combination of references renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Kawashima, as the primary reference, teaches the use of their composite particles on a backing (Kawashima, Figures 2 and 3).
With respect to claim 3, the combination of references renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Kawashima, as the primary reference, teaches the use of their composite particles on a backing in the form of a mono layer (Kawashima, Figure 2).
With respect to claim 4, the combination of references renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Kawashima, as the primary reference, teaches the use of their composite particles on a backing in the form of multiple layers (Kawashima, Figure 3).
With respect to claim 6, the combination of references renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Kawashima, as the primary reference, teaches the use of their composite particles in abrasive tools for the purpose of grinding (Kawashima, col. 1, lines 35-40; cols. 5 and 6). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized the disclosed composite particles in a grinding tool such as a grinding wheel.
With respect to claim 7, the combination of references renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Kawashima, as the primary reference, in at least one example, teaches the use of nylon 12 having an average diameter of about 5.0 microns as the core or spherical particle, with alumina particles having an average diameter of about 0.4 micron on the core spherical particle (Kawashima, Example 1). This would result in a ratio of the average size of the larger size abrasive to the smaller size abrasive of about 12.5 which falls within the claimed range. This value is taken to render the claimed limitation of the “ratio of an average nominal size of the larger size abrasive to that of an average nominal size of the smaller abrasive” obvious.
MPEP 2144.05 states “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).
With respect to claim 8, the combination of references renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Kawashima, as the primary reference, in at least one example, as detailed out above teaches a ratio of about 12.5 which falls between the claimed values of 2 and 30.
MPEP 2144.05 states “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).
With respect to claim 12, the combination of references renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Kawashima, as the primary reference teaches the use of polymeric spherical particles in the core; thus, the reference renders “resin” obvious.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 7-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,672,382 to Lux in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0118939 Duscher et al. (hereinafter Duscher).
With respect to claim 1, Lux discloses composite powder particle consisting of a core which is of a hard material and can have a size of 0.1-100 microns, and a coating comprising of several layers, wherein at least one layer is of superhard material chemically different from the material of the core (Lux, Abstract, col. 2, lines 8-20 and 31-38; col. 7, lines 54-61). Lux teaches the inner diameter of the core is 0.01-100 microns as noted above, and that the outer diameter of the composite powder particle is 1-1000 microns (Lux, col. 7, lines 54-61). Considering the fact that the outer diameter of the composite powder particle can be within a range of 1-1000 microns, it can include any diameter within this range such as 105 microns or 110 microns, and again, because the reference teaches a diameter of 0.1-100 microns for the core, the diameter of the core hard material can be any value within this range such as those closer to the upper limit of this range, i.e. closer to 100 microns. As such, even though the reference does not disclose an embodiment anticipating the claim, the reference renders a composite cluster of abrasives having a larger size core of abrasive material, with a smaller size abrasive attached to the core obvious. This is, especially, in light of the fact that even though Lux may not literally disclose a diameter for the superhard material of the coating, the fact that through the addition of the coating, the outer diameter of the composite powder particle can be any value within 1-1000 microns would render it obvious that the size of individual materials in the coating cannot be thicker than the thickness of the coating, and that it can be as small as closer to the lower limit of the range.
Lux discloses that the dimensions of the composite body particle as well as the size of the core and coating(s), respectively, can be varied within broad ranges (Lux, col. 7, lines 44-46). It is important to note that even though the size of the composite particle can be as large as 1000 microns, but the size of the core particle can be as large as 100 microns, it does not show that the core is necessarily smaller than the size of the materials in the coating; this is because the composite can be as small as 1 micron or any value between 1 to 1000 microns such as 110 microns.
MPEP 2144.05 states “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).
Lux discloses the use of hard materials such as diamond for the core and the coating (Lux, col. 4, lines 64-67).
Lux, however, does not disclose the application of their composite powder particles onto a substrate, as that claimed in claim 1.
Duscher, flexible abrasive sheet articles having precision thickness flat-topped raised island structures that are coated with a monolayer of equal sized abrasive agglomerates, discloses the monolayer of abrasive agglomerates can be a composite particle of abrasive materials such as diamond, cubic boron nitride, aluminum oxide, silicon carbide, and more (Duscher, abstract, Figure 29, [0143]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized the composite particles of Lux on the backing of the coated abrasive article of Duscher motivated by the fact that Duscher clearly is open to the use of composite particles, and the composite particles of Lux and Duscher comprise hard and superhard materials such as diamond, cubic boron nitride, aluminum oxide, silicon carbide, and more.
With respect to claim 3, the combination of references renders the claim obvious; this is because as noted above in the rejection of claim 1, Duscher teaches having a monolayer of composite particles on a substrate (see above for details, in particular, Duscher, Figure 29, abstract, [0143]).
With respect to claim 7-9, the combination of references renders the claim obvious; this is because considering the disclosures of Lux on a core particle of 0.01-100 microns and a composite powder particle diameter of 1-1000 microns, it is reasonable to see these ranges render in a ratio of an average nominal size of the larger size abrasive to that of an average nominal size of the smaller abrasive of between 2 to 300, or a ratio of between 2 to 30, or even a ratio of between 2-10 obvious due to overlapping ranges of the size of the particles, and due to the fact that the size of individual particles in the coating cannot be larger than the thickness of the coating.
MPEP 2144.05 states “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).
With respect to claim 10, the combination of references renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular because, as noted above, Lux teaches a core particle size of 0.01-100 microns, and composite particle size of 1-1000 microns. Even though the size of the composite particle can be as large as 1000 microns, but the size of the core particle can be as large as 100 microns, it does not show that the core is necessarily smaller than the size of the materials in the coating; this is because the composite can be as small as 1 micron or any value between 1 to 1000 microns. Moreover, Lux discloses that the dimensions of the composite body particle as well as the size of the core and coating(s), respectively, can be varied within broad ranges (Lux, col. 7, lines 44-46). Thus, the reference is seen to render the claimed range of 0.01% to 35% by volume for the ratio of the smaller size abrasive to a larger size abrasive obvious because the reference is open to any value within 0.01-100 microns for the core and any value within 1-1000 microns for the composite size which would include values which would result in a ratio within the claimed range.
With respect to claim 11, the combination of references renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Lux teaches hard material such as carbides such as SiC, TiC, WC, and nitrides as well as oxides such as Al2O3 for the core, and teaches superhard materials such as diamond, boron nitride, superhard binary or ternary phase of B, N,C for the coating (Lux, col. 2, lines 8-37).
With respect to claim 12, the combination of references renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Lux teaches metals such as Cu, Ag, Au, alloys or compounds such as oxides for the composite powder particles (Lux, col. 2, lines 22-24).
With respect to claim 13, the combination of references renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because “up to 50%” includes any and all values below 50%; thus, the fact that Lux does not disclose any porosity for metals, alloys or oxides of lines 22-24 of column 2 is taken to mean that the porosity of said examples is zero which is within the claimed range.
With respect to claim 14, the combination of references renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Lux discloses a few different embodiments for the material of the core and coating; in one such embodiment, the core is a monocrystalline material having a polycrystalline layer formed thereto (Lux, col. 3, lines 28-31). This is taken to render obvious a chemical bonding between the core and particles in the coating.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art do not disclose or suggest the cumulative limitations of claims 1, 14, and 15. Furthermore, the prior art do not disclose or suggest the cumulative limitations of claims 1 and 16, the cumulative limitations of claims 1 and 17, and the cumulative limitations of claims 1 and 18.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEGAH PARVINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2639. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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 at 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.
/PEGAH PARVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731