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 .
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.
Claims 7 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.
Claim 7 is indefinite because there isn’t a unit recited with the range of “0.01 to 10”.
Claim13 recites “second flavor”. This is indefinite because there was no previous reference to a first flavor. Thus, it is unclear of there is a first flavor in the composition.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
__________________________________________________________________
Claims 1, 2, 7 and 9-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 9 and 11 of copending Application No. 18/282,618
With respect to claims 1 and 7¸ copending Application No. 18/282,618 claims a tobacco material comprising: a core comprising a first tobacco mixture; and a shell surrounding at least a portion of the core and comprising a second tobacco mixture, wherein the first tobacco mixture comprises first tobacco particles and a flavor substance, the second tobacco mixture comprises second tobacco particles, and the shell has a surface roughness (Ra) of about 5.0 to about 10.0 (Claim 1).
With respect to claim 2, copending Application No. 18/282,618 claims the tobacco material comprises about 5.0 wt% to about 8.0 wt% of moisture, based on a total weight of the tobacco material (Claim 5).
With respect to claim 9, copending Application No. 18/282,618 claims A method of manufacturing a tobacco material, the method comprising: a first operation of manufacturing a core by using a first composition comprising a flavor substance; and a second operation of forming a shell surrounding at least a portion of the core (Claim 8) and wherein the first operation comprises growing the first composition by spraying the first composition in a fluidized-bed reactor at a temperature of about 30 °C to about 60 °C and under an air pressure of 1.5 bar or less (Claim 9).
With respect to claim 10, copending Application No. 18/282,618 claims wherein the first operation comprises growing the first composition by spraying the first composition in a fluidized-bed reactor (e.g., chamber) at a temperature of about 30 °C to about 60 °C and under an air pressure of 1.5 bar or less (Claim 9).
With respect to claim 11, copending Application No. 18/282,618 claims wherein the second operation comprises: positioning the core in a fluidized-bed reactor (e.g., chamber); and coating a surface of the core with a second composition by spraying the second composition in the fluidized-bed reactor at a temperature of about 50 0C to about 90 °C and under an air pressure of 1.5 bar or less (Claim 11).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
______________________________________________________________
Claims 3, 5, 12 and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of copending Application No. 18/282,618 in view of SUN et al. (US 2010/0170522).
With respect to claim 3, copending Application No. 18/282,618 does not explicitly claim that the second tobacco mixture has a flavoring material. SUN et al. discloses tobacco granules (Abstract; Title) comprising a core, 12, comprising a flavorant and first tobacco material in a matrix (e.g., tobacco mixture) (Paragraph [0026]; Figures 1A-1D) and a shell, 14, formed around the core and comprising second tobacco particles and flavorants and binders in a mixture (Paragraphs [0028] and [0032]; Figures 1A-1D).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide flavoring material in the second tobacco mixture of copending Application No. 18/282,618, as taught by SUN et al., so as to provide the desired flavor profile.
With respect to claim 5¸ copending Application No. 18/282,618 claims a size of core (Claim 3), but not necessarily overlapping with the claimed ranges. SUN et al. discloses that the core has a diameter of 300 microns (e.g., 0.3 mm) (Paragraph [0007]) and the shell has a diameter of 500 microns (e.g., 0.5 mm) (Paragraph [0010]). Specifically, the overall diameter is 500 microns, and since the shell is the outer component of the granule, the shell also has this diameter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the sizes for the core and shell of copending Application No. 18/282,618, as disclosed by SUN et al., so as to provide the desired tactile feel to the user (Paragraph [0032]).
With respect to claim 12, copending Application No. 18/282,618 does not explicitly claim the flavor concentration. SUN et al. discloses that the core materials (e.g., first composition) comprises flavoants that may be adjusted to give a desired flavor release profile (Paragraphs [0037] and [0054]). The flavor profile can be controlled by the concentration of flavorant (Paragraph [0055]) and the profiles and properties are nearly limitless (Paragraphs [0058]-[0059]). Very high concentrations of flavorant create a flavor spike (Paragraph [0056]; Figures 2A and 2B .
While the volume concentration of the flavoring is unknown in SUN et al., the courts have generally held that generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05, II, A.
In the instant case, SUN et al. recognizes the concentration of flavorant as a result effective variable for controlling the spike in flavor, as seen in figures 2A and 2B. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a lower concentration through routine optimization, such as between 0.1% and 20% by volume as claimed, so as to provide a lower flavor spike and more subtle flavor tones.
With respect to claim 13, copending Application No. 18/282,618 does not explicitly disclose the claimed third operation. SUN et al. discloses a third operation of adding a second flavor to the shell (Paragraphs [0050]-[0056]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform the third coating as taught by SUN et al. so that the desired flavor can be provided to the tobacco.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
____________________________________________________________________
Claims 1-3, 5-9 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4-10 of copending Application No. 18/279,511 in view of SUN et al. (US 2010/0170522)
With respect to claim 1¸ copending Application No. 18/279,511 claims A tobacco material comprising: a core comprising a natural flavor material and a shell formed around the core and comprising a tobacco mixture, wherein the tobacco mixture comprises tobacco particles and moisture (Claim 1).
copending Application No. 18/279,511 does not explicitly claim tobacco material in the core. SUN et al. discloses tobacco granules (Abstract; Title) comprising a core, 12, comprising a flavorant and first tobacco material in a matrix (e.g., tobacco mixture) (Paragraph [0026]; Figures 1A-1D) and a shell, 14, formed around the core and comprising second tobacco particles and flavorants and binders in a mixture (Paragraphs [0028] and [0032]; Figures 1A-1D).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide tobacco in the core of copending Application No. 18/279,511, as taught by SUN et al. so that the desired flavor profile can be provided.
With respect to claim 2, copending Application No. 18/279,511 claims the tobacco material comprises 5.0 to 10.0 parts by weight of moisture with respect to 100 parts by weight of the total tobacco material (Claim 4).
With respect to claim 3, SUN et al. discloses tobacco granules (Abstract; Title) comprising a core, 12, comprising a flavorant and first tobacco material in a matrix (e.g., tobacco mixture) (Paragraph [0026]; Figures 1A-1D) and a shell, 14, formed around the core and comprising second tobacco particles and flavorants and binders in a mixture (Paragraphs [0028] and [0032]; Figures 1A-1D).
Claim 5 is rejected by claim 5 of copending Application No. 18/279,511.
Claim 6 is rejected by claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/279,511.
Claim 7 is rejected by claim 7 of copending Application No. 18/279,511.
With respect to claim 8, copending Application No. 18/279,511 claims A smoking article comprising: a tobacco rod comprising the tobacco material according to claim 1; and a filter segment (Claim 8).
With respect to claim 9, copending Application No. 18/279,511 claims a method of preparing a tobacco material, the method comprising: a first operation of forming a core comprising a natural flavor material; and a second operation of forming a shell surrounding the core (Claim 9)
With respect to claim 11, copending Application No. 18/279,511 claims wherein the second operation comprises: placing the core in a chamber; introducing a tobacco composition into the chamber; and growing the tobacco composition around the core in the chamber under conditions of a temperature in a range of about 50 *C to about 90 *C, and an air pressure less than or equal to about 1.5 bar (Claim 10).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SUN et al. (US 2010/0170522).
With respect to claim 1, SUN et al. discloses tobacco granules (Abstract; Title) comprising a core, 12, comprising a flavorant and first tobacco material in a matrix (e.g., tobacco mixture) (Paragraph [0026]; Figures 1A-1D) and a shell, 14, formed around the core and comprising second tobacco particles and flavorants and binders in a mixture (Paragraphs [0028] and [0032]; Figures 1A-1D).
With respect to claim 3, SUN et al. discloses that the second tobacco mixture comprises a second flavor material (Paragraphs [0028], [0032).
With respect to claim 5¸ SUN et al. discloses that the core has a diameter of 300 microns (e.g., 0.3 mm) (Paragraph [0007]) and the shell has a diameter of 500 microns (e.g., 0.5 mm) (Paragraph [0010]). Specifically, the overall diameter is 500 microns, and since the shell is the outer component of the granule, the shell also has this diameter.
With respect to claim 9¸ SUN et al. discloses tobacco granules (Abstract; Title) comprising a core, 12, comprising a flavorant (Paragraph [0026]; Figures 1A-1D) and a shell, 14, formed around the core and comprising tobacco particles (Paragraph [0028]; Figures 1A-1D).
SUN et al. further discloses a method (Paragraph [0017]) for forming said granules. The method comprises a first operation of forming the core (Paragraph [0015]) by growing in a fluid bed reactor (Paragraphs [0050]-[0053]) to form the desired size and a second operation of forming the shell surrounding the core (Paragraph [0016]).
With respect to claim 13, SUN et al. discloses a third operation of adding a second flavor to the shell (Paragraphs [0050]-[0056]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
____________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 2, 4, 6, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUN et al. (US 2010/0170522) in view of STRICKLAND et al. (US 2006/0191548).
With respect to claim 2, SUN et al. does not explicitly disclose that the moisture content is 5-10 parts by weight to 100 parts of the tobacco material. STRICKLAND et al. discloses that a moisture content of 2-50 % of the final product (Paragraph [0208]) so that the products are sufficiently rigid so as to be easily handled. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the coating of SUN et al. with a moisture content of between 2 and 50 percent of the weight of the tobacco product, as taught by STRICKLAND et al., so that it can be easily handled.
With respect to claim 4, SUN et al. discloses that the core comprises a flavor compound (Paragraphs [0026] and [0027]) but does not specify the concentration of said flavor compound in the core.
STRICKLAND et al. discloses a composition having 2 grams of cinnamon flavor to 100 parts of other materials to form the tobacco composition (Paragraph [0339]) which provide the user with tobacco satisfaction (Paragraph [0024]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the flavoring in the core of SUN et al. in an amount of 2 parts by weight, as taught by STRICKLAND et al. so as to provide the user with a desired tobacco satisfaction.
With respect to claim 6¸ SUN et al. discloses that the formulations forming the granules can be sprayed (Paragraphs [0015], [0016]) but does not explicitly disclose the viscosity of the tobacco material. STRICKLAND et al. discloses that spraying is performed with a liquid having a viscosity of 50 cPs (Paragraph [0335]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the tobacco material with a viscosity of 50 cPs, as taught by STRICKLAND et al. so that it can be sprayed.
With respect to claim 10, SUN et al. does not explicitly disclose the claimed chamber and processing temperature and pressure.
STRICKLAND et al. discloses placing the ingredients of the core in a chamber and grown to a desired size (Paragraphs [0162]-[0168) in a chamber (Paragraphs [0164]-[0167]) under 22 psi and a temperature of 43 degrees Celsius (Paragraph [0168]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a chamber, growing the core of SUN et al. in the chamber, introducing the tobacco material coating into the chamber at a temperature of 43 degrees Celsius and a pressure of 22 psi (e.g., about 1.5 bar), as taught by STRICKLAND et al., so that the granules can be produced having the desired size.
With respect to claim 11, SUN et al. discloses that the core is formed in a fluid bed processor and then the coatings are sprayed onto the core (Paragraphs [0015], [0016]) at a temperature of between 10 and 80 degrees (Paragraph [0083]) but does not explicitly disclose the claimed chamber and processing pressure.
STRICKLAND et al. discloses spraying of a tobacco composition that takes place in a chamber and under a pressure of 22 psi (e.g., about 1.5 bar) and a temperature of about 43 degrees Celsius (Paragraphs [0162]-[0168. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a chamber, spray the coating of SUN et al. in a chamber, at a temperature of 43 degrees Celsius and a pressure of 22 psi (e.g., about 1.5 bar), as taught by STRICKLAND et al., so that the granules can be produced having the desired size.
_______________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUN et al. (US 2010/0170522) in view of ROJO-CALDERON et al. (US 2018/0295885) and ONNO (US 2012/0167901).
With respect to claim 7, SUN et al. does not explicitly disclose the surface roughness of the tobacco material.
ROJO-CALDERON et al. discloses an aerosol generating article comprising aerosol pellets (Abstract; Title). The particles may be provided with a desired rough or smooth surface finish (Paragraphs [0039], [0041], [0083], [0127]) to form compacted particles. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the particles of SUN et al. with a rough surface, as taught by ROJO-CALDERON et al. so as to provide the desired compacting properties.
ONNO discloses a tobacco product (Abstract). The surface of the tobacco layer has a roughness, Ra, of below about 0.002 microns (Paragraph [0047]) to provide a smooth surface. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the roughness of the coating surface of SUN et al. with a roughness, Ra, of greater than 0.002 microns, as taught by ONNO so as to provide a rough surface.
The courts have generally held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05, I. Thus, a surface roughness of greater than 0.002 microns implicitly overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 to 10.
______________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUN et al. (US 2010/0170522) in view of ZHUANG et al. (US 2007/0000505).
With respect to claim 8, SUN et al. does not explicitly disclose the claimed smoking article comprising the tobacco material of claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1).
ZHUANG et al. discloses a smoking article with tobacco beads (e.g., tobacco material) (Abstract; Title). The smoking article comprises a tobacco rod having the tobacco material therein ((Paragraphs [0002], [0020], [0027], [0050]-[0052]) and a filter segment (Paragraphs [0019]-[0021]). Such a configuration allows the flavor of the cigarette to be enhanced (Paragraph [0043]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a tobacco rod, having the tobacco particles of modified SUN et al. therein, and a filter segment to form a smoking article, as taught by ZHUANG et al. so that the flavor of a cigarette can be enhanced.
______________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUN et al. (US 2010/0170522).
With respect to claim 12¸ SUN et al. discloses that the core materials (e.g., first composition) comprises flavoants that may be adjusted to give a desired flavor release profile (Paragraphs [0037] and [0054]). The flavor profile can be controlled by the concentration of flavorant (Paragraph [0055]) and the profiles and properties are nearly limitless (Paragraphs [0058]-[0059]). Very high concentrations of flavorant create a flavor spike (Paragraph [0056]; Figures 2A and 2B .
While the volume concentration of the flavoring is unknown in SUN et al., the courts have generally held that generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05, II, A.
In the instant case, SUN et al. recognizes the concentration of flavorant as a result effective variable for controlling the spike in flavor, as seen in figures 2A and 2B. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a lower concentration through routine optimization, such as between 0.1% and 20% by volume as claimed, so as to provide a lower flavor spike a more subtle flavor tones.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX B EFTA whose telephone number is (313)446-6548. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST 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, Philip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
/ALEX B EFTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745