DETAILED ACTION
This is a final Office action in response to the amendment filed 06/16/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending;
Claims 1 and 2 are currently amended; claims 3-7 were previously presented; claims 8-15 have been withdrawn;
Claims 1-7 are rejected herein.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to Kojima et al. (US 2010/0320353 A1), hereinafter Kojima, on page 10 of the remarks,
"The applicant states that the retainers 30 are provided with steel ball clamping grooves and steel balls, while the support structure 40 are provided without steel balls and steel ball clamping grooves. The support structure 40 is located at a rear position of the whole retainers 30 (wherein the retainers 30 including the steel balls). However, the portion 13g, which is compared as the support structure, in Kojima is a part of the retainers 30, not an additional protruding structure which can provide a longitudinal auxiliary support for a mid-rear section of the upper rail assembly when the upper rail assembly slides backwards to a farthest distance."
have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The limitations at issue are "each of the retainers has a rear end and is provided with a supporting structure at the rear end" (claim 1, lines 9 and 10), which do not specify as to whether or not the supporting structure is a structural part of each of the retainers. Kojima does disclose retainers (13, fig 2, the two front retainers 13, also shown in Figure 4), wherein each of the retainers has a rear end (13f, fig 4, the rear end of the main body of the retainer 13) and is provided with a supporting structure (13g, fig 4, see annotation, the rear supporting structure of the retainer 13, also see the phantom line) at the rear end.
[AltContent: textbox (13g – Supporting Structure)][AltContent: arc]
PNG
media_image1.png
292
454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (13f – Rear End)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (13i – Guide Bevel Edge)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (13e – Steel Ball Clamping Grooves)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (13g – Supporting Structure)]
[AltContent: textbox (13h – Steel Ball Clamping Groove)]
[AltContent: textbox (13j – Tail End)]
Moreover, when the upper rail assembly (12, fig 2) slides backwards to a farthest distance, the supporting structure of each of the retainers provides longitudinal auxiliary support to the front section of the upper rail assembly (see annotation below), thus subsequently providing longitudinal auxiliary support to the mid-front section of the upper rail assembly, the middle section of the upper rail assembly, and the mid-rear section of the upper rail assembly, since the upper rail assembly is integrally formed with the front section, the mid-front section, the middle section, and the mid-rear section. In other words, providing longitudinal auxiliary support to one section of the upper rail assembly brings about longitudinal auxiliary support to another section of the upper rail assembly indirectly.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Mid-Rear Section)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
478
602
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Mid-Front Section)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Rear Section)]
[AltContent: textbox (Middle Section)]
[AltContent: textbox (Front Section)]
Applicant's arguments with respect to Kojima et al. (US 2010/0320353 A1), hereinafter Kojima, on pages 10 and 11 of the remarks,
"In addition, the feature 'the supporting structure of each of the retainers is in contact with the lower rail assembly, and a gap is reserved between the supporting structures and the upper rail assembly' is neither disclosed by Kojima, Quast, Bhat nor Ioppolo, after comparison."
have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As shown in Figures 3 and 4 of Kojima, the protrusions (13a, 13b, fig 4) of each of the supporting structure (13g, fig 4, see annotation) are clearly in contact with the lower rail assembly (11, fig 2). Also see paragraph 0033 of Kojima. Moreover, there is a clear gap (G, fig 3, see annotation, the gap between the lower portion of the supporting structure 13g and the upper rail 12) reserved between the supporting structures and the upper rail assembly (see Figures 3 and 4).
PNG
media_image3.png
470
576
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (The supporting structure (13g) is in contact with the lower rail assembly (11).)]
[AltContent: textbox (G – Gap)]
Applicant's arguments with respect to Kojima et al. (US 2010/0320353 A1), hereinafter Kojima, on page 11 of the remarks,
"More specifically, from the comparison opinion of Office Action that the position of the portion 13g compared to the supporting structure 40 of the present invention corresponds to the part marked in blue in Kojima's Figure 3, and it can be seen that the portion marked as 13g is clamped by the upper rail 12 and the lower rail 11. In the present invention, it can be seen from Figure 4a that the supporting structure 40 should be located below the bottom surface of the upper rail 10, and there is a gap between the bottom surface of the upper rail and the supporting structure 40."
have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As shown in the annotated Figures 3 and 4 below, the supporting structure (13g, fig 4, see annotation) of each of the retainers (13, fig 4) extends below the bottom surface of the upper rail assembly (12, fig 3). In other words, the supporting structure of each of the retainers is, at least partially, located under the bottom surface of the upper rail assembly.
[AltContent: textbox (Bottom Surface of Upper Rail Assembly)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
292
454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arc]
PNG
media_image3.png
470
576
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (13g – Supporting Structure)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (The supporting structure of each of the retainers is, at least partially, located under the bottom surface of the upper rail assembly.)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (13g – Supporting Structure)]
[AltContent: arrow]
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, the limitations "first raised ribs and steel ball clamping grooves are arranged at intervals on surfaces of each of the retainers that contact the upper rail assembly and the lower rail assembly" in lines 4-6 are considered as --first raised ribs and steel ball clamping grooves are arranged at intervals on surfaces of each of the retainers, wherein the retainers contact the upper rail assembly and the lower rail assembly--, since the clause "that contact the upper rail assembly and the lower rail assembly" is arranged immediately after the term "the retainers."
Regarding claim 1, the limitations "a gap is reserved between the supporting structures and the upper rail assembly" in lines 14 and 15 are acceptable. Based on the original disclosure of the present application, there are two supporting structures (40). Also, a first gap is formed between a first supporting structure (40) of the two supporting structures (40) and the upper rail assembly (10) whereas a second gap is formed between a second supporting structure (40) of the two supporting structures (40) and the upper rail assembly (10). As best understood, the limitations "a gap is reserved between the supporting structures and the upper rail assembly" in lines 14 and 15 are considered to claim either the first gap or the second gap.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 18, "the sliding rail" appears to be --the upper rail assembly--.
Claim 2, line 5, "surfaces of the retainers" appears to be --the surfaces of the retainers--. See claim 1, line 5.
Claim 2, line 6, "one grease layer" appears to be --one grease layer of the two grease layers--.
Claim 2, lines 7 and 8, "the other grease layer" appears to be --the other grease layer of the two grease layers--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, there is no support in the original disclosure of the present application for the following limitations: "two grease layers, wherein one grease layer is arranged between the supporting structure of each of the retainers and the upper rail assembly while the other grease layer is arranged between the supporting structure of each of the retainers and the lower rail assembly" (claim 2, lines 6-9). The original disclosure of the present application simply states that "a grease layer is arranged between the supporting structure, and the upper assemblies and lower rail assemblies" (specification, paragraph 0017). As best understood, there is only one grease layer originally disclosed, which is "arranged between the supporting structure, and the upper assemblies and lower rail assemblies." The number of the grease layers and the particular arrangement of the grease layers, as currently claimed, are not found in the original disclosure of the present application. Thus, the limitations "two grease layers, wherein one grease layer is arranged between the supporting structure of each of the retainers and the upper rail assembly while the other grease layer is arranged between the supporting structure of each of the retainers and the lower rail assembly" (claim 2, lines 6-9) are considered as new matter. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is rejected as being dependent from a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima et al. (US 2010/0320353 A1), hereinafter Kojima, in view of Quast (US 2018/0194248 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kojima discloses a sliding rail (10, fig 2) having an enhanced rigidity modulus, the sliding rail comprising an upper rail assembly (12, fig 2), a lower rail assembly (11, fig 2), and retainers (13, fig 2, the two front retainers 13, also shown in Figure 4), wherein the upper rail assembly is slidably arranged in a sliding groove in the lower rail assembly through a pair of the retainers (see Figures 2 and 3); first raised ribs (13a, 13b, 13c, fig 4) and steel ball clamping grooves (13e, fig 4, see annotation, the two front steel ball clamping grooves defined by the retainer 13) are arranged at intervals on surfaces of each of the retainers (see Figure 4) that contact the upper rail assembly and the lower rail assembly (see Figures 3 and 4), wherein steel balls (14a, 14b, fig 4, paragraph 0028, line 5) are mounted in the steel ball clamping grooves of the retainers (see Figure 4), and the steel balls are in contact with the upper rail assembly and the lower rail assembly (see Figures 3 and 4); each of the retainers has a rear end (13f, fig 4, the rear end of the main body of the retainer 13) and is provided with a supporting structure (13g, fig 4, see annotation, the rear supporting structure of the retainer 13, also see the phantom line) at the rear end, wherein the supporting structures extend backwards in a length direction of the retainers (see Figures 2-4); and when the upper rail assembly slides backwards to a farthest distance, the supporting structure of each of the retainers provides longitudinal auxiliary support for a mid-rear section of the upper rail assembly (see Figures 2-4, e.g., via directly supporting the front section, the mid-front section, and/or the middle section of the upper rail 12), the supporting structure of each of the retainers is in contact with the lower rail assembly (see Figures 3 and 4, e.g., via the protrusions 13a, 13b), and a gap (G, fig 3, see annotation, the gap between the lower portion of the supporting structure 13g and the upper rail 12) is reserved between the supporting structures and the upper rail assembly (see Figures 3 and 4), wherein the supporting structure of each of the retainers is located under a bottom surface of the upper rail assembly (see Figures 3 and 4, also see annotation below).
PNG
media_image3.png
470
576
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (G – Gap)]
[AltContent: textbox (13g – Supporting Structure)][AltContent: arc]
PNG
media_image1.png
292
454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (13f – Rear End)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (13i – Guide Bevel Edge)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (13e – Steel Ball Clamping Grooves)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (13g – Supporting Structure)]
[AltContent: textbox (13h – Steel Ball Clamping Groove)]
[AltContent: textbox (13j – Tail End)]
[AltContent: textbox (Bottom Surface of Upper Rail Assembly)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
292
454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arc]
PNG
media_image3.png
470
576
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (13g – Supporting Structure)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (The supporting structure of each of the retainers is, at least partially, located under the bottom surface of the upper rail assembly.)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (13g – Supporting Structure)]
[AltContent: arrow]
Kojima is silent with respect to the movement distance of the retainers and the movement distance of the sliding rail, when the upper rail assembly and the pair of retainers move with respect to the lower rail assembly. In other words, Kojima does not explicitly disclose the sliding rail, wherein, when the upper rail assembly and the pair of retainers move with respect to the lower rail assembly, a movement distance of the retainers is half of a movement distance of the sliding rail.
Quast teaches a sliding rail comprising: an upper rail assembly, a lower rail assembly, and retainers (paragraph 0005, lines 1-4, the ball cages are retainers), wherein, when the upper rail assembly and the pair of retainers move with respect to the lower rail assembly, a movement distance of the retainers is half of a movement distance of the sliding rail (paragraph 0005, lines 1-4).
Kojima and Quast are analogous art because they are at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to set a movement distance of the retainers (Kojima: 13, fig 4) to be half of a movement distance of the sliding rail (Kojima: 10, fig 2; Quast: paragraph 0005, lines 1-4), when the upper rail assembly (Kojima: 12, fig 2) and the pair of retainers (Kojima: 13, fig 4) move with respect to the lower rail assembly (Kojima: 11, fig 2), as taught by Quast, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to prevent the retainers from moving out of the sliding rail while providing an appropriate amount of movement within the sliding rail. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kojima and Quast to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Kojima, as modified by Quast with respect to claim 1, does not explicitly teach the sliding rail, wherein the retainers are made of polyamide-6 materials, and the supporting structure of each of the retainers is made of polyformaldehyde resin.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the retainers (Kojima: 13, fig 4) from polyamide-6 materials and form the supporting structure (Kojima: 13g, fig 4, see annotation) of each of the retainers from polyformaldehyde resin, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. The motivation would have been to provide the retainers with strength, toughness, and wear resistance for usage in the sliding rail and provide the supporting structures with durability, lubricity, and low friction for usage in the sliding rail. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination of Kojima and Quast to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Kojima, as modified by Quast with respect to claim 1, does not explicitly teach the sliding rail, wherein the retainers and the supporting structure of each of the retainers are made of polyamide-6 materials.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the retainers (Kojima: 13, fig 4) and the supporting structure (Kojima: 13g, fig 4, see annotation) of each of the retainers from polyamide-6 materials, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. The motivation would have been to allow the retainers and the supporting structures integrally formed with strength, toughness, and wear resistance for usage in the sliding rail. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination of Kojima and Quast to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Kojima, as modified by Quast with respect to claim 6, teaches the sliding rail, wherein the supporting structure of each of the retainers is filled with a metal ball (Kojima: 14b, fig 4, the rear metal ball 14b) received in a steel ball clamping groove (Kojima: 13h, fig 4, see annotation, the rear steel ball clamping groove defined by the retainer 13).
Kojima, as modified by Quast with respect to claim 1, does not explicitly teach the sliding rail, wherein the supporting structure of each of the retainers is filled with metal wires or metal balls.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to reconfigure the supporting structure (Kojima: 13g, fig 4, see annotation) of each of the retainers (Kojima: 13, fig 4) with a plurality of steel ball clamping grooves (Kojima: 13h, fig 4, see annotation) and provide a plurality of metal balls (Kojima: 14b, fig 4) within the plurality of steel ball clamping grooves, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. The motivation would have been to enhance support of the upper rail assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination of Kojima and Quast to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, wherein a guide bevel edge (Kojima: 13i, fig 4, see annotation, the guide bevel edge at the top tail end 13j of the support structure 13g) is arranged at a tail end (Kojima: 13j, fig 4, see annotation, the top tail end 13j of the support structure 13g) of the supporting structure of each of the retainers (Kojima: see Figure 4).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima et al. (US 2010/0320353 A1), hereinafter Kojima, in view of Quast (US 2018/0194248 A1), Bhat (US 11,097,638 B2), and Ioppolo (US 9,738,180 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Kojima, as modified by Quast with respect to claim 1, does not teach the sliding rail, (1) wherein a surface of the supporting structure of each of the retainers is spray-coated with a lubricating coating; surfaces of the retainers are spray-coated with the lubricating coating; and (2) wherein the sliding rail comprises two grease layers, wherein one grease layer is arranged between the supporting structure of each of the retainers and the upper rail assembly while the other grease layer is arranged between the supporting structure of each of the retainers and the lower rail assembly.
With respect to the missing limitations (1) above, Bhat teaches a sliding rail (3, fig 1) comprising: a retainer (8, fig 6) provided with a supporting structure (71, 72, 73, fig 6), wherein a surface of the supporting structure and surfaces of the retainer are spray-coated with a lubricating coating (75b, fig 6, col 16, lines 7-36).
Bhat is analogous art because it is at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to spray-coat a surface of the supporting structure (Kojima: 13g, fig 4, see annotation) of each of the retainers (Kojima: 13, fig 4) and surfaces of the retainers (Kojima: 13, fig 4) with a lubricating coating (Bhat: 75b, fig 6, col 16, lines 7-36), as taught by Bhat, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to provide the retainers and the supporting structures with a low friction coating for smooth sliding of the retainers and the upper rail assembly.
With respect to the missing limitations (2) above, Ioppolo teaches a sliding rail (1, fig 1) comprising: an upper rail assembly (3, fig 1), a lower rail assembly (2, fig 1), and a retainer (4, fig 1) provided with a supporting structure (41, fig 4), wherein two grease layers (see Figure 1, see col 2, lines 5-8), wherein one grease layer is arranged between the supporting structure of the retainer and the upper rail assembly (see Figure 1, see col 2, lines 5-8) while the other grease layer is arranged between the supporting structure of the retainer and the lower rail assembly (see Figure 1, see col 2, lines 5-8).
Ioppolo is analogous art because it is at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the sliding rail (Kojima: 10, fig 2) with two grease layers (Ioppolo: see Figure 1, see col 2, lines 5-8), wherein one grease layer (Ioppolo: see Figure 1, see col 2, lines 5-8) is arranged between the supporting structure (Kojima: 13g, fig 4, see annotation) of each of the retainers (Kojima: 13, fig 4) and the upper rail assembly (Kojima: 12, fig 2) while the other grease layer (Ioppolo: see Figure 1, see col 2, lines 5-8) is arranged between the supporting structure of each of the retainers and the lower rail assembly (Kojima: 11, fig 2), as taught by Ioppolo, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to enhance sliding of the retainers and the upper rail assembly relative to the lower rail assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kojima, Quast, Bhat, and Ioppolo to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, wherein the lubricating coating is a polytetrafluoroethylene coating (Bhat: 75b, fig 6, col 16, lines 7-36).
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 Guang H Guan whose telephone number is (571) 272-7828. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays (10:00 AM - 6:00 PM).
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/G. H. G./Examiner, Art Unit 3631
/JONATHAN LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3631