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 Status Claims 1-18 , as filed on September 26, 2023, are currently pending. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) based upon an application filed in China on September 16, 2022. The claim for priority cannot be based on said application because the subsequent nonprovisional or international application designating the United States was filed more than twelve months thereafter and no petition under 37 CFR 1.55 or request under PCT Rule 26bis.3 to restore the right of priority has been granted. While applicant filed a petition under 37 CFR 1.55(e) on September 26, 2023, this petition was dismissed in a decision issued on March 4, 2024. No renewed petition nor petition under 37 CFR 1.55(c) has been filed. Accordingly, for the purpose of examination, the effective filing date of the instant application is September 26, 2023 . Applicant may wish to file a petition under 37 CFR 1.55(c) to restore the right of priority if the subsequent application was filed within two months from the expiration of the twelve-month period and the delay was unintentional. A petition to restore the right of priority must include: (1) the priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) in an application data sheet, identifying the foreign application to which priority is claimed, by specifying the application number, country (or intellectual property authority), day, month, and year of its filing (unless previously submitted); (2) the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(m)(3); and (3) a statement that the delay in filing the subsequent application within the twelve-month period was unintentional. The petition to restore the right of priority must be filed in the subsequent application, or in the earliest nonprovisional application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to the subsequent application, if such subsequent application is not a nonprovisional application. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. The petition should be addressed to: Mail Stop Petition, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(l) and (p)(3). In particular, Figure 1 is objected to as the character of the lines and letters are not durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined . The lettering is not clear and there appears to be stray marks or smudges on the figure along with the lettering and components of the flow chart. Additionally, the letters should not cross or mingle with the lines , as they do in the components labeled “Strip production” or “Ru or Ni salt solutior .” There also appears to be typographical error in the component labeled, “Ru of Ni salt solutior .” Correction is required. Specification The title of the invention is objected to as it should not include words such as “A” at the beginning of the title. See MPEP § 606. The following title is suggested: “Supported Ru and/or Ni Catalyst and Preparation Method Thereof”. Claim Objections Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recites “the zinc precursor is ba one” in line 10. This appears to be a typographical error; it should read “the zinc precursor is one.” Claim 2 recites “nickel hydroxide, any and a combination thereof” in line 13. This appears to be a typographical error; it should read “nickel hydroxide, and a combination thereof.” Appropriate correction is required. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-18 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 1 recites “after drying” in line 10. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because the claim does not previously recite a step of drying. For the purpose of examination, this will be interpreted as claim 1 requiring a step of drying the impregnated carrier, and then proceeding to “after drying, calcining the impregnated carrier….” 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. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Jiang et al. (CN 115555015; citations provided below are from attached machine translation) (“Jiang”) . Regarding claim s 1 and 10 , Jiang discloses a method for preparing a supported Ru and/or Ni catalyst, comprising: mixing a magnesium precursor, a zinc precursor, or a nickel precursor with an aluminum precursor in solid phase to form a first mixture; adding an auxiliary agent to the first mixture to form a second mixture, wherein the auxiliary agent is to increase a specific surface area; calcining the second mixture at a first temperature to obtain a spinel carrier; placing the spinel carrier in a solution of a Ru and/or Ni metal salt to impregnate the spinel carrier with the Ru and/or Ni metal salt to obtain an impregnated carrier; and after drying, calcining the impregnated carrier at a second temperature to obtain the supported Ru and/or Ni catalyst (see reference claim 1) . Jiang further discloses the supported Ru and/or Ni catalyst prepared by the above method (see reference claim 10). Regarding claim s 2 and 11 , Jiang further discloses that spinel carrier comprises a composition selected from the group consisting of MgAl 2 O 4 , ZnAl 2 O 4 , and NiAl 2 O 4 ;wherein the aluminum precursor is one selected from the group consisting of alumina, aluminum nitrate, pseudoboehmite , aluminum hydroxide, basic aluminum carbonate, and a combination thereof; wherein the magnesium precursor is one selected from the group consisting of magnesium oxide, magnesium carbonate, magnesium hydroxide, and a combination thereof; wherein the zinc precursor is one selected from the group consisting of sic zinc carbonate, zinc nitrate, zinc hydroxide, any and a combination thereof; and wherein the nickel precursor is one selected from the group consisting of nickel nitrate or nickel hydroxide, and a combination thereof (see reference claim 2) . Jiang further discloses the supported Ru and/or Ni catalyst prepared by the above method (see reference claim 10). Regarding claim s 3 and 12 , Jiang further discloses that a molar ratio of divalent metal ions to Al is 0.5:1 - 1:4, wherein the divalent metal ions include Mg 2 + from the magnesium precursor, Zn 2 + from the zinc precursor, Ni 2 ' from the nickel precursor, or a combination thereof, and wherein Al is from the aluminum precursor (see reference claim 3) . Jiang further discloses the supported Ru and/or Ni catalyst prepared by the above method (see reference claim 10). Regarding claim s 4 and 13 , Jiang further discloses that the auxiliary agent is polyphosphoric acid, boric acid, silicic acid, sodium silicate, phosphate, or a combination thereof (see reference claim 4). Jiang further discloses the supported Ru and/or Ni catalyst prepared by the above method (see reference claim 10). Regarding claim s 5 and 14 , Jiang further discloses that a weight ratio of the auxiliary agent is: 0.5-10wt% of a total weight of the second mixture (see reference claim 5) . Jiang further discloses the supported Ru and/or Ni catalyst prepared by the above method (see reference claim 10). Regarding claim s 6 and 15 , Jiang further discloses that the first temperature is 500-700 ° C, and a heating rate is 1-10°C/min (see reference claim 6) . Jiang further discloses the supported Ru and/or Ni catalyst prepared by the above method (see reference claim 10). Regarding claim s 7 and 16 , Jiang further discloses that a drying temperature is 70-120 ° C, and a drying time is 0.5-24h (see reference claim 7) . Jiang further discloses the supported Ru and/or Ni catalyst prepared by the above method (see reference claim 10). Regarding claim s 8 and 17 , Jiang further discloses that in the supported Ru and/or Ni catalyst, a load of Ru and/or Ni is: 10-30wt% of Ni and/or 0.5-12wt% of Ru, based on a total weight of the supported Ru and/or Ni catalyst (see reference claim 8) . Jiang further discloses the supported Ru and/or Ni catalyst prepared by the above method (see reference claim 10). Regarding claim s 9 and 18 , Jiang further discloses that the Ni metal salt is Ni(N03)2, NiCl2, Ni(CH3CO O) 2 , or a combination thereof; and wherein the Ru metal salt is Ru(N0 3 ) 3 , RuCl3, K 2 RuO 4 , or a combination thereof (see reference claim 9) . Jiang further discloses the supported Ru and/or Ni catalyst prepared by the above method (see reference claim 10). 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. Claims 1- 5, 7-14, and 16- 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rytter (U.S. Pat. Publ’n No. 2008/0255256) (“ Rytter ”) in view of Jiang et al. ( CN 103143398 ; citations provided below are from attached machine translation) (“Jiang ‘ 398 ”) . Regarding claim s 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , and 9 , Rytter discloses a method for preparing a supported Ni catalyst (abstract; [0026]-[0027]). The reference discloses a support material formed from an alumina and oxide of a second metal, such as magnesium ([0023]). The support material may comprise a spinel compound formed with alumina ([0023]). The support compound is impregnated nickel compounds, such as a solution of nickel nitrate (Ni(NO 3 ) 2 ), and then dried, calcined, and activated ([0026]-[0027] ; [0032] ; reading on claim 9 ). While Rytter discloses that the catalyst may be used hydrocarbon/coal industry ([0001]) and that support material may be a spinel compound form with alumina and magnesium ([0023]), the reference does not explicitly disclose that the support material is formed by comprising mixing a magnesium precursor with an aluminum precursor in solid phase to form a first mixture , adding an auxiliary agent to the first mixture to form a second mixture, wherein the auxiliary agent is to increase a specific surface area , and calcining the second mixture at a first temperature to obtain a spinel carrier . Such methods for formation of a catalyst support material or carrier from alumina and magnesium precursor materials are well known in the art. For example, Jiang ‘ 398 discloses a method of forming a magnesium-aluminum spinel carrier that may be used in the coal chemical industry as a catalyst support (abstract; [0001]-[0002]). Jiang ‘ 398 discloses that a magnesium precursor, such magnesium carbonate, is mixed with an aluminum precursor, such as alumina or pseudo-boehmite powder, in a solid phase to form a first mixture ([0011]; [0012]; [0014]; reading on claims 1 and 2 ). The first mixture is then combined with an auxiliary agent, such as an inorganic additive of polyphosphoric acid, boric acid, sodium silicate, or phosphate , to form a second mixture ([0014]; [0006]; reading on claims 1 and 4 ). The auxiliary agent is added in an amount of 0.5 to 8 wt. % of the second mixture ([0010]; reading on claim 5 ) The second mixture is then extruded, dried, and calcined at a first temperature of about 400 to 600 ° C to form the spinel carrier ([0014]). The inclusion of the inorganic additive permits a lower calcination temperature to be used and result s in a support material with good crystallinity which also a voids the problem s of reduced catalytic activity and low specific surface area of other known carrier materials in the art (abstract ; [0005]; [0018]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a method of forming a magnesium-aluminum spinel catalyst support material from a combination of aluminum and magnesium precursor materials along with an inorganic additive in the method of forming a supported Ni catalyst of Rytter , as suggested by Jiang ‘398, since doing so will provide a magnesium-aluminum spinel support material with good crystallinity and which avoids the problems of reduced catalytic activity and low specific surface area of other known carrier materials. With respect to claims 10, 11, 13 , 14 , and 18 , as modified Rytter discloses the method as set forth in claims 1, 2, 4 , 5 , and 9 , modified Rytter necessarily produce s a supported Ni catalyst as prepared by the methods of claims 1, 2, 4 , 5 , and 9 . Regarding claim 3 , modified Rytter discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. While the combination of references does not explicitly disclose that the molar ratio of magnesium to aluminum in the mixture of precursor materials is from 0.5 to 0.25, Jiang ‘398 discloses that the molar ratio of magnesium to aluminum in the mixture of precursor materials may be from 0.66 to 3.33. Rytter also discloses that support materials with a high content of alumina can increase selectivity to higher hydrocarbons (C5+) ([0003]; [0011]). As the selectivity to higher hydrocarbons is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the molar ratio of magnesium to aluminum in the mixture of precursor materials , the precise molar ratio would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed molar ratio cannot be considered critical. See Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.) . Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the molar ratio of magnesium to aluminum in the mixture of precursor materials in the method of modified Rytter to obtain the desired selectivity to higher hydrocarbons ( KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007); Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele , 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (C . C . P . A . 1969) ), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (C . C . P . A . 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05 , subsection I I. A. With respect to claim 12 , as modified Rytter discloses the method as set forth in claim 3 , modified Rytter necessarily produces a supported Ni catalyst as prepared by the method of claim 3 . Regarding claim 7 , modified Rytter discloses all of the limitations set forth above. Although Rytter teaches that the impregnated support material may be dried at a temperature from 80 ° C to 120 ° C to remove water from the pores ([0007]), the reference does not explicitly disclose a drying time from 0.5 to 24 hours. As the level of water removal from the pores of the impregnated support is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the drying time, the precise drying time would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed drying time cannot be considered critical. See Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.) . Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the drying time for the impregnated support in the method of modified Rytter to obtain the desired level of water removal from the pores ( KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007); Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele , 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (C . C . P . A . 1969) ), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (C . C . P . A . 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05 , subsection II . A. With respect to claim 16 , as modified Rytter discloses the method as set forth in claim 7 , modified Rytter necessarily produces a supported Ni catalyst as prepared by the method of claim 7 . Regarding claim 8 , modified Rytter discloses all of the limitations set forth above. While Rytter does not explicitly disclose a load of nickel in the range of 10 to 30 wt. % of the supported catalyst, the reference does teach that in the supported Ni catalyst, the optimum level of nickel will vary from catalyst to catalyst system and may be in a range of 2 to 5 wt. % ([0046]). Rytter further discloses that the addition of nickel to the catalyst material can significantly increase catalytic activity and does not decrease higher hydrocarbon selectivity ([0042]). Rytter also teaches that nickel can have a stabilizing effect on the catalyst activity ([0043]). Accordingly, as the catalytic activity and stability of the catalyst material is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of nickel in the final catalyst material, the precise load of nickel would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed drying time cannot be considered critical. See Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.) . Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the load of nickel in the final catalyst material in the method of modified Rytter to obtain the desired level of catalytic activity and stability ( KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007); Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele , 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (C . C . P . A . 1969) ), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (C . C . P . A . 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05 , subsection II . A. With respect to claim 17 , as modified Rytter discloses the method as set forth in claim 8 , modified Rytter necessarily produces a supported Ni catalyst as prepared by the method of claim 8 . Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rytter (U.S. Pat. Publ’n No. 2008/0255256) (“ Rytter ”) and Jiang et al. (CN 103143398; citations provided below are from attached machine translation) (“Jiang ‘398”), as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Lambert et al. (U.S. Pat. Publ’n No. 2019/0388874) . Regarding claim 6 , modified Rytter discloses all of the limitations set forth above. Jiang ‘398 discloses that the support material is calcined at a first temperature of about 400 to 600 ° C to form the spinel carrier ([0014]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari , 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (C . C . P . A . 1974) . Neither Rytter nor Jiang ‘398 discloses the preferred heating rate of the first calcination step, such as from 1 to 10 ° C per minute. Lambert discloses a method for preparation of a carrier material for use in combustion of hydrocarbon materials (abstract). The carrier may comprise a magnesium aluminate material ([0045]) and be formed from a combination of precursor oxide materials ([0045]-[0050]). The mixture of precursor materials is preferably calcined at a temperature between 400 ° C and 1400 ° C ([0051]). Lambert teaches that the calcining step has an impact on the mechanical strength of the support material and that the temperature rise ramp of the calcination step may be between 1 ° C per minute and 50 ° C per minute ([0134]-[0136]). Following calcination, the material may be impregnated with a solution comprising nickel ([0137]-[0143]). Accordingly, a s the mechanical strength of a magnesium aluminate s upport material i s a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the heating rate of the calcination step , as suggested by at least Lambert , the precise heating rate would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed heating rate cannot be considered critical. See Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.) . Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the heating rate of the first calcination step in the method of modified Rytter obtain the desired mechanical strength of the support material ( KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007); Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele , 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (C . C . P . A . 1969) ), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (C . C . P . A . 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05 , subsection II . A. With respect to claim 15 , as modified Rytter discloses the method as set forth in claim 6 , modified Rytter necessarily produces a supported Ni catalyst as prepared by the method of claim 6 . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KATHERINE M ZALASKY MCDONALD whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7064 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, 9:00 AM to 5:30 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT JACOB BETIT can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-4075 . 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. /KATHERINE ZALASKY MCDONALD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 6221