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
Applicant amendment filed 11/28/2025 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 1-9 and 12-20 remain pending in the application.
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) 1-5, 7-9, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (CN106478940 of record with reference made to examiner provided machine translation) hereinafter Song in view of Lee (US2015/0113714 of record) in view of Yang et al. (US2006/0282958 of record) hereinafter Yang.
Regarding claim 1, Song teaches:
A method for preparing a modified poly (m-phenylene isophthalamide) (PMIA) fiber by continuous polymerization-dry-wet spinning, comprising the following steps:
(1) preparing a mixed solution of m-phenylenediamine (MPD) (ln 349-350);
(2) mixing isophthaloyl chloride (IPC) with the mixed solution of the MPD (ln 358-ln 363), and conducting pre-polycondensation to obtain a prepolymer (ln 370); and conducting polycondensation on the prepolymer to obtain a modified PMIA resin solution (ln 369-381); and
(3) subjecting the modified PMIA resin solution to additive addition, filtration, defoaming (ln 383-385), and dry-wet spinning to obtain the modified PMIA fiber (ln 216).
Song does not teach preparing a mixed solution of m-phenylenediamine (MIPD) and a copolymerized diamine monomer.
In the same field of endeavor regarding aramid fibers, Lee teaches preparing a mixed solution of m-phenylenediamine (MPD) and a copolymerized diamine monomer and IPC to produce a prepolymer for the motivation of improving acid dyeability of the resulting fibers ([0001, 0019, 0056]; DAPBI).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mixed solution of m-phenylenediamine as taught by Song with the copolymerized diamine monomer as taught by Lee in order to improve acid dyeability of the resulting fibers.
Song in view of Lee does not teach wherein in step (3), the modified PMIA resin solution is added with an organic additive capable of forming a hydrogen bond with an amide group before the filtration.
In the same field of endeavor regarding fiber spinning, Yang teaches adding an organic additive capable of forming a hydrogen bond with an amide group to a spinning solution for the motivation of improving spinnability of the fibers ([0022]; applicant specification identifies glycerol as having the claimed property).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the solution as taught by Song in view of Lee with the organic additive as taught by Yang in order to improve spinnability of the fibers.
Song in view of Lee and Yang does not teach adding the organic additive before filtration.
However, it has been held that selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the organic additive before filtration since selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results.
Yang further teaches wherein the organic additive is a low-molecular-weight alcohol and acid, glycerol.
Song in view of Lee and Yang does not explicitly recite that the glycerol is added at 0.01 wt% to 3 wt% of a dosage of the modified PMIA resin solution.
However, Yang teaches a range of values for the amount of glycerol added that overlaps with the claimed range ([0022]; Yang teaches adding protein, solvent, reducing agents, and plasticizer in the following amounts: solvent at 0.1% to 50% by weight of the protein, reducing agent at between 0.05 to 20% of the weight of the protein and plasticizer at between 0.5% and 50% by weight of the protein, which gives a range for the plasticizer of ~0.001%-29.4% of the weight of the solution, i.e., protein + solvent + reducing agent).
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). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the glycerol amount as taught by Yang that overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 2, Song in view of Lee and Yang teaches the method of claim 1.
Lee further teaches wherein in step (1), a preparation method of the mixed solution of the MPD and the copolymerized diamine monomer comprises: dissolving a cosolvent in a solvent ([0056]; CaCl2), conducting water removal with a drying system ([0056]; solution is heated, facilitating removal of water via evaporation), and dissolving the copolymerized diamine monomer and the MPD in an obtained cosolvent-containing solvent ([0056]).
Regarding claim 3, Song in view of Lee and Yang teaches the method of claim 1.
Song further teaches wherein in step (1), a solvent of the mixed solution of the MVPD and the copolymerized diamine monomer is N, N-dimethylacetamide (DMAC) (ln 349-350).
Regarding claim 4, Song in view of Lee and Yang teaches the method of claim 2.
Lee further teaches wherein in step (1), the cosolvent is an inorganic chloride of an alkali metal or an alkaline earth metal, and the cosolvent is added at 0.1% to 10% of a mass of the solvent of the mixed solution of the MVPD and the copolymerized diamine monomer ([0056]).
Regarding claim 5, Song in view of Lee and Yang teaches the method of claim 4.
Lee further teaches an alternative embodiment wherein the inorganic chloride of the alkali metal or the alkaline earth metal is LiCl ([0026]).
Regarding claim 7, Song in view of Lee and Yang teaches the method of claim 1.
Lee further teaches adding copolymerized diamine monomer with IPC and MPD to form a mixed solution ([0056]).
Song further teaches wherein in step (2), the mixing is conducted in a micro-mixer (ln 353-367), the IPC is added into the micro-mixer in a molten state at 45°C to 60°C (ln 358), the mixed solution of the MPD is added into the micro-mixer in a solution state at -20°C to 10°C (ln 355-356); and the polycondensation is conducted in a multi-stage micro-screw device (ln 369-381), and the multi-stage micro-screw device is controlled at 20°C to 70°C (ln 369-381).
Lee further teaches adding copolymerized diamine monomer with MPD to form a mixed solution ([0056]).
It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill that the prior art teaches the mixed solution of the MPD and is added into the micro-mixer in a solution state at -20°C to 10°C.
Song in view of Lee and Yang does not explicitly recite the micro-mixer is controlled at -20°C to 60°C and the micro-reactor is controlled at 10°C to 60°C.
However, Song teaches a range of values for the temperatures of the micro-mixer and the micro-reactor that overlaps with the claimed ranges (ln 359-360).
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). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the temperatures of the micro-mixer and the micro-reactor as taught by Song that overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 8, Song in view of Lee and Yang teaches the method of claim 7.
Song in view of Lee and Yang does not teach wherein the micro-reactor is in a shape selected from the group consisting of heart, circle, triangle, line, and spire.
However, it has been held that changes in shape are obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have changed the shape of the microreactor as taught by Song in view of Lee to be a heart, circle, triangle, line, or spire since changes in shape are obvious.
Regarding claim 9, Song in view of Lee and Yang teaches the method of claim 1.
Song in view of Lee does not explicitly recite wherein the modified PMIA resin has an inherent viscosity of greater than or equal to 1.8 dl/g..
However, Song teaches a range of values for the inherent viscosity that overlaps with the claimed range (ln 359-360).
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). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the inherent viscosity as taught by Song that overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 15, Song in view of Lee and Yang teaches the method of claim 1.
Song in view of Lee does and Yang explicitly recite wherein a PMIA fiber prepared by the continuous polymerization-dry-wet spinning has a breaking strength of greater than or equal to 6.0 cN/dtex, an elongation of 25% to 50%, and an initial modulus of greater than or equal to 90 cN/dtex.
However, since the prior art teaches the method steps of the claimed invention, it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect the prior art method to result in the claimed PMIA fiber.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Lee and Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McMillin et al. (US3562220 of record) hereinafter McMillin.
Regarding claim 6, Song in view of Lee and Yang teaches the method of claim 1.
Lee further teaches wherein the copolymerized diamine monomer is at least one selected from the group consisting of 6,4'-diamino-2'-trifluoromethyl-2-phenylbenzimidazole, 2-(4-aminophenyl)-5-aminophenylbenzimidazole, 5-amino-2-(4-aminophenyl)benzoxazole, 5- amino-2-(4-aminophenyl)benzothiazole, 2,6-diaminobenzothiazole, 2,6-diaminopyridine, 2-(4- aminophenyl)-5 -aminopyridine, 2,5-bis(4-aminophenyl)pyridine, o-chloro-p-phenylenediamine, and p-phenylenediamine ([0001, 0019, 0056]; DAPBI = 2-(4-aminophenyl)-5-aminophenylbenzimidazole).
Song in view of Lee and Yang does not teach the copolymerized diamine monomer has a molar content 0.1% to 10% that of the IPC.
In the same field of endeavor regarding fibers, McMillin teaches preparing a mixed solution of m-phenylenediamine (MIPD) and a copolymerized diamine monomer and IPC for the motivation of improving acid dyeability of the resulting fibers (col 2, ln 9-12; col 6, ln 26-32; 2,6-diaminopyridine).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the a copolymerized diamine monomer of Song in view of Lee and Yang with the a copolymerized diamine monomer as taught by McMillin and the results of the substitution would have been predictable since the prior art teaches preparing a mixed solution of m-phenylenediamine (MIPD) and a copolymerized diamine monomer and IPC to improve acid dyeability of the resulting fibers.
McMillin further teaches a value for the molar content that is close to the claimed range (col 6, ln 26-32; molecular weight for IPC is 203 mol/g, giving molar content of 0.06% of 2,6-diaminopyridine compared to IPC).
It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Therefore the value of the molar content as taught by McMillin makes obvious the claimed ranges since the taught value and claimed range are close.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Lee and Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morgan (US3414645 of record) and Matsumoto et al. (JPH03161507 of record with reference made to examiner provided machine translation) hereinafter Matsumoto.
Regarding claim 12, Song in view of Lee and Yang teaches the method of claim 1.
Song in view of Lee does not teach wherein in step (3), the dry-wet spinning comprises the following steps: passing a spinning solution through a spinneret plate and then through an air layer, and entering a first coagulation bath to obtain a nascent fiber; and pre-drafting the nascent fiber, entering a second coagulation bath, and conducting water washing, drying, dry heat stretching, heat setting, and winding/cutting to obtain the modified PMIA fiber.
Song in view of Lee and Yang is silent as to the specific method of dry-wet spinning. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to other methods of dry-wet spinning for the specific steps to produce a spun fiber.
In the same field of endeavor regarding fiber spinning, Morgan teaches dry-wet spinning by passing a spinning solution through a spinneret plate (Fig 1: spinnerette 5; col 6, ln 61-64) and then through an air layer (col 4, ln 5-23), and entering a first coagulation bath to obtain a nascent fiber (Fig 1: coagulation bath 7; col 6, ln 69-75); and conducting water washing (col 5, ln 45-57), drying (col 5, ln 58-61), dry heat stretching (col 5, ln 65-75), heat setting (col 5, ln 65-75), and winding/cutting to obtain the modified fiber (col 6, ln 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tried the dry-wet spinning steps as taught by Morgan and there would be a reasonable expectation of success since the prior art references teach dry-wet spinning to produce a spun fiber.
Song in view of Lee, Yang, and Morgan does not teach pre-drafting the nascent fiber and entering a second coagulation bath.
In the same field of endeavor regarding fiber spinning, Matsumoto teaches pre-drafting a nascent fiber and entering a second coagulation bath for the motivation of avoiding defects such as voids generated inside the fiber (ln 69-76).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spinning as taught by Song in view of Lee, Yang, and Morgan with the pre-drafting and application of a second bath as taught by Matsumoto in order to avoid defects such as voids generated inside the fiber.
Regarding claim 13, Song in view of Lee, Yang, Morgan, and Matsumoto teaches the method of claim 12.
Song in view of Lee, Yang, Morgan, and Matsumoto does not explicitly recite wherein the spinneret plate has a pore size of 0.06 mm to 0.25 mm; the spinning solution passes through the air layer with a height of 2 mm to 80 mm; and the pre-drafting is conducted at a drafting speed 2 to 5 times a spinning speed of the spinning solution.
However, Morgan teaches a range of values for the pore size and air layer height that overlaps with the claimed ranges (col 4, ln 5-23; col 6, ln 66-68).
Matsumoto further teaches a range of values for the drafting speed that overlaps with the claimed range (ln 73-76).
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). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the pore size and air layer height as taught by Morgan and the portion of the drafting speed as taught by Matsumoto that overlaps with the claimed range.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Lee, Yang Morgan, and Matsumoto as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Takiue et al. (US2009/0054620 of record) hereinafter Takiue.
Regarding claim 14, Song in view of Lee, Yang, Morgan, and Matsumoto teaches the method of claim 12.
Song in view of Lee, Yang, Morgan, and Matsumoto does not explicitly recite the first coagulation bath has a temperature of 20°C to 50°C, and the second coagulation bath has a temperature of 30°C to 60°C, a plasticizing stretching factor is 1.1 to 4, the dry heat stretching is conducted at 280°C to 350°C and a stretching factor of 1.1 to 3; and the heat setting is conducted at 280°C to 350°C.
However, Matsumoto further teaches a range of values for the temperature of the first coagulation bath (ln 66-67) and the temperature of the second coagulation bath (ln 72-73) that overlaps with the claimed ranges.
Morgan further teaches a range of values for a plasticizing stretching factor (col 4, ln 33-35), the dry heat stretching temperature and stretching factor (col 5, ln 66-69); and temperature of the heat setting (col 5, ln 71-75) that overlaps with the claimed ranges.
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). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the temperature of the first coagulation bath and the temperature of the second coagulation bath as taught by Matsumoto and the portion of the plasticizing stretching factor, the dry heat stretching temperature and stretching factor, and the temperature of the heat setting as taught by Morgan that overlaps with the claimed range.
Song in view of Lee, Yang, Morgan, and Matsumoto does not teach wherein the first coagulation bath and the second coagulation bath each are a DMAC aqueous solution; the first coagulation bath has a DMAC concentration of 20 wt% to 45 wt%, and the second coagulation bath has a DMAC concentration of 15 wt% to 40 wt%.
Matsumoto further teaches the first coagulation bath and the second coagulation bath each are an aqueous solution (ln 62-65, ln 69-73).
Song further teaches spinning of a poly-m-phenylene isophthalamide polymer to produce a meta-aramid fiber.
In the same field of endeavor regarding fiber spinning, Takiue teaches coagulation bath comprising a DMAC aqueous solution with a range of values for the DMAC concentration that overlaps the claimed range for forming a meta-aramid fiber from a poly-m-phenylene isophthalamide polymer ([0039, 0053-0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the aqueous solution of the first and second coagulation baths as taught by Song in view of Lee, Yang, Morgan, and Matsumoto with the DMAC aqueous solution as taught by Takiue and the results of the substitution would have been predictable since the prior art teaches forming a meta-aramid fiber from a poly-m-phenylene isophthalamide polymer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Yang does not teach or suggest an organic additive capable of forming a hydrogen bond with an amide group. However, claim 1 and applicant specification identifies glycerol as an organic additive capable of forming a hydrogen bond with an amide group. Yang teaches glycerol as a plasticizer that is used for the motivation of improving spinnability of the fibers ([0022]). Applicant argues that the plasticizers of Yang break hydrogen bonds and disulfide bonds. Applicant recites [0022] of Yang as evidence. However, the examiner notes that the passage recited contains no mention of glycerol, plasticizers, or breaking of hydrogen bonds and disulfide bonds using glycerol or plasticizers. Instead, Yang teaches at least one of alkali, acid, alcohol, reducing agent, chemical additive, or salt for performing the above function. Yang further teaches that the above additives are optional ([0022]) and that various changes may be made in the form, construction and arrangement of the components thereof without departing from the scope and spirit of the invention or without sacrificing all of its material advantages ([0043]). Furthermore, the examiner notes that the organic additive as claimed must simply be capable of performing the claimed function, not necessarily that the claimed function occurs. Furthermore, even if the claim were amended to recite the claimed function as a required step, there is no evidence that any of the additives of Yang would prevent said function from occurring, as Yang specifically recites “breaking the disulfide linkages and hydrogen bonds in the wheat proteins” ([0022], emphasis added). Rather than performing a different mechanism as argued, Yang teaches including plasticizers such as glycerol for improving spinnability of the fibers ([0022]). Applicant specification discloses organic additives such as glycerol for the purpose of enhancing spinnability ([0036]). Therefore the premise, analysis, and conclusion of applicant’s arguments are flawed both factually and logically.
Applicant argues that Yang and the instant invention relate to entirely different chemical systems. However, both Yang and the instant invention relate generally to the same field of endeavor regarding fiber spinning. Furthermore, both Yang and the instant application teaches improving/enhancing spinnability of the fiber solution. While the specific details of each invention are understandably directed to their focused applications, i.e., protein vs PMIA fibers, the teaching relied upon in Yang for the use of plasticizers such as glycerol as evidenced above is applicable to fiber production in general. Furthermore, the overall mechanism of Yang is not as different as applicant argues. Both Yang and the instant invention teaches to form spinning solution using solvents, etc., adding glycerol to improve spinnability, and spinning the resulting mixture to obtain fibers.
Applicant argues that Yang does not make obvious the claimed ranges for glycerol. Applicant argues that the range calculated by the examiner is not a teaching of Yang. However, the calculations achieved above are obtained directly from the teachings of Yang ([0022]), which discloses adding protein, solvent, reducing agents, and plasticizer in the following amounts: solvent at 0.1% to 50% by weight of the protein, reducing agent at between 0.05 to 20% of the weight of the protein and plasticizer at between 0.5% and 50% by weight of the protein, which gives a range for the plasticizer of ~0.001%-29.4% of the weight of the solution, i.e., protein + solvent + reducing agent. That this teaching is implicit rather than explicit does not change the factual nature of the teaching. Applicant argues that the range overlap only applies when the prior art and claims relate to the same purpose, same effect, same system. Applicant argues that Yang uses glycerol as a plasticizer for dissolving biological proteins and the instant invention uses glycerol as hydrogen-bond-forming additives for improving PMIA spinning. First, as discussed above, this step is not claimed. Second, as discussed above, applicant’s understanding of the function of the glycerol in Yang is factually wrong, and in fact, the glycerol of Yang functions in the same manner as the instant application for improving/enhancing spinnability of the solution. Applicant argues that there is no motivation to select or optimize Yang’s plasticizer. However, as stated in the combination of Yang with the references of Song and Lee, one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the solution as taught by Song in view of Lee with the organic additive as taught by Yang in order to improve spinnability of the fibers. Clearly this motivation would extend to the suggested amounts/ranges of the glycerol as well.
Applicant argues that there is no motivation to modify Song and Lee with the dissolution additives of Yang. However, as stated above and in the rejection, Yang teaches glycerol for improving spinnability of the fibers ([0022]).
Applicant argues that Yang does not disclose the claimed additives aside from glycerol. However, the claimed additives are listed in the form of Markush groupings and are therefore not required since glycerol is taught, as shown above.
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741