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 Objections
Claim 4 is missing a period at the end of the claim.
Claim 19 is missing an “and” before the last alternative in the Markush group.
Claim 20 is missing a colon after “of”.
Claim Interpretation
The claims recite “the bar” and “the strip”. These recitations are interpreted as referring to “a fiber reinforcement bar or strip” from Claim 1.
Claim 6 recites “the steel”. This is interpreted as referring the steel of the steel strip.
Claim 6 recites “the steel”. This is interpreted as referring the steel of the steel fibers.
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 1-20 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 “the cement”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 2 recites “the surface area”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 2 recites “the chemical reactions”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 3 recites “the epoxy or plastic binder”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 4 recites “the epoxy or plastic binder”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 4 recites “the finished smooth pultruded form”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 5 recites “the epoxy or plastic binder”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 11 recites “the holes and mechanical forms”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 11 recites “the strips”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 13 recites “the rebar cage”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 15 recites “strip” without “the” prior. It is unclear if this claim is referring to “a…strip” from Claim 1 or a new strip.
Claim 15 recites “the Fiber reinforcement and binder”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It is also unclear why “Fiber” is capitalized, is this a brand or other trademark?
Claim 17 recites “the modification”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 17 recites “the shape”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 18 recites “the fibers”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-7, 12, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gupta (US20150344367A1).
Claim 1
Gupta teaches a method of providing a reinforcement bar (rebar) (¶0005 “rebar”), comprising: forming a fiber reinforcement bar or strip (¶0005 teaches the use of fibers in the reinforcement element.); providing a surface coated with a pozzolan to react in the cement (¶0006-0007 teach the use of a supplementary cementitious material that is coated onto the reinforcement element, that material being pozzolan.); providing a cross section to support bending moments and tensile loads of the rebar. (This part of the claim does not indicate what the cross section is required to be. Since Gupta’s product is also a reinforcement bar, and it has a cross section (See Figure 2), it meets this part of Claim 1.)
Claim 5
Gupta teaches the method of claim 1, comprising transferring pozzolans to the epoxy or plastic binder. (¶0023 teaches an epoxy is applied to the reinforcement, then the pozzolanic material is applied to the adhesive.)
Claim 6
Gupta teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the bar consists of a steel strip (¶0008 teaches the bar is steel.) embedded with a layer of fibers (¶0019 teaches the use of steel rebar reinforced with carbon fibers.) and binder (¶0006 teaches the use of a binder, then adding the cementitious material.) forming a composite structure protecting the steel from corrosion. (¶0020 teaches the inclusion of pozzolanic materials reduces the corrosion.)
Claim 7
Gupta teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the bar consists of steel fibers (¶0021 teaches the use of steel fibers.) mixed with glass, basalt, carbon or other fibers (¶0021 teaches the use of glass, carbon or other fibers alongside the steel fibers.) to form a composite that both increases strength and protects the steel in the binder. (Since Gupta teaches the use of the same structure (steel and glass/carbon fibers), the reference teaches the inherent benefits of these materials as well.)
Claim 12
Gupta teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the rebar is in the shape of a strip or ribbon with enhanced flexibility in the thin bending moment. (¶0025 teaches the rebar is flat, which is a strip or ribbon. Since Gupta teaches all of the structural requirements of Claims 1 and 12, it is interpreted that the rebar in Gupta has the inherent benefits of this shape as well.)
Claim 15
Gupta teaches the method of claim 1, wherein strip can be close to the surface of the concrete structure without impacting surface strength due to the inert nature of the Fiber reinforcement and binder. (The limitation “close to the surface of the concrete structure without impacting surface strength” is interpreted as a result of the rebar having the “fiber reinforcement” and “binder”. Based on this, Gupta teaches a rebar with fiber reinforcement (¶0019 or ¶0021) and a binder (¶0006). Therefore, Gupta teaches the resulting capability of being positioned close to the surface of the concrete structure as well.)
Claim 18
Gupta teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the rebar is bound with dicyclopentadiene or other bonding agent (¶0024 teaches the fibers of the CFRP rebar are pulled through a resin bath, the through a die to bind them together. The resin is the “other bonding agent” as claimed.) to bind the fibers together and the surface is then coated with a pozzolan. (¶0024 teaches the pozzolanic material is applied after the CFRP rebar is pultruded (by passing through the die).)
Claim 19
Gupta teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the pozzolan comprises one of: fly ash, silica fume, rice husk ash, slag cement, metakaolin. (¶0008)
Claim 20
Gupta teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the pozzolan comprises one of clinker, cement, clay, and volcanic rock. (¶0008 “volcanic ashes and pumices”; Additionally or alternatively, all of the additives listed in Gupta are identified as supplementary cementitious materials.)
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 2-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (US20150344367A1), as applied in Claim 1, further in view of Scurgai (US20190152849A1).
Claim 2
Gupta teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the surface is coated with pozzolan. (¶0006 “SCM”)
Gupta does not disclose the surface is rolled or compressed to increase the surface area available for the chemical reactions of the pozzolan bound to the rebar with the surrounding concrete.
However, Scurgai teaches rolling or compressing to increase the surface area available for the chemical reactions of the pozzolan bound to the rebar with the surrounding concrete. (Figure 3A teaches Unit E, which has a forming device (324) in the form of two rollers (¶0082) that modify the cross section of the strip (310) of fibers. This occurs after the application of a cement or clinker (¶0028 teaches the use of Portland cement) in Unit D. Unit E causes a fiber rebar to be rolled or compressed to modify the cross section into a cable (See Figure 4) and increase the surface area after coating with the cementitious material.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known compression/rolling into a cable shape technique from Scurgai to the method of Gupta in order to perform cross sectional shaping of the strip while removing excess binder from the strip (See ¶0082). Additionally/alternatively, the shape(s) made by the rolling and cross sectional shaping in Scurgai are used to make planar frameworks (See Figure 4 of Scurgai), making this forming technique and shape advantageous for that purpose.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known compression/rolling into a cable shape technique from Scurgai to the method of Gupta because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the reinforcement bar of Gupta will be rolled, compressed and shaped using rollers after the addition of the SCM.
Claim 3
Gupta teaches the method of claim 1, wherein pozzolans are transferred to the epoxy or plastic binder (¶0023 teaches an epoxy is applied to the reinforcement, then the pozzolanic material is applied to the adhesive.) by spraying a finished smooth pultruded form and dusting the surface with pozzolan (¶0024 teaches the pozzolan (SCM) is sprayed onto the surface. Since the SCM is listed as several granulated materials (See ¶0008), this step is considered a “dusting”.).
Gupta does not disclose rolling it into the surface of the bar.
However, Scurgai teaches a rolling step of a reinforcement bar after application of a cementitious material. (Figure 3A teaches Unit E, which has a forming device (324) in the form of two rollers (¶0082) that modify the cross section of the strip (310) of fibers. This occurs after the application of a cement or clinker (¶0028 teaches the use of Portland cement) in Unit D. Unit E causes a fiber rebar to be rolled or compressed to modify the cross section into a cable (See Figure 4) and increase the surface area after coating with the cementitious material.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known compression/rolling into a cable shape technique from Scurgai to the method of Gupta in order to perform cross sectional shaping of the strip while removing excess binder from the strip (See ¶0082). Additionally/alternatively, the shape(s) made by the rolling and cross sectional shaping in Scurgai are used to make planar frameworks (See Figure 4 of Scurgai), making this forming technique and shape advantageous for that purpose.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known compression/rolling into a cable shape technique from Scurgai to the method of Gupta because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the reinforcement bar of Gupta will be rolled, compressed and shaped using rollers after the addition of the SCM.
Claim 4
Gupta teaches the method of claim 1, wherein pozzolans are transferred to the epoxy or plastic binder through a chemical welding or gluing process (¶0023 teaches an epoxy is applied to the reinforcement, then the pozzolanic material is applied to the adhesive.) of spraying the finished smooth pultruded form (¶0006 teaches the SCM is applied after the pultrusion process.) and ‘dusting’ the surface with pozzolan (¶0024 teaches the pozzolan (SCM) is sprayed onto the surface. Since the SCM is listed as several granulated materials (See ¶0008), this step is considered a “dusting”.).
Gupta does not disclose rolling it into the surface of the bar.
However, Scurgai teaches a rolling step of a reinforcement bar after application of a cementitious material. (Figure 3A teaches Unit E, which has a forming device (324) in the form of two rollers (¶0082) that modify the cross section of the strip (310) of fibers. This occurs after the application of a cement or clinker (¶0028 teaches the use of Portland cement) in Unit D. Unit E causes a fiber rebar to be rolled or compressed to modify the cross section into a cable (See Figure 4) and increase the surface area after coating with the cementitious material.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known compression/rolling into a cable shape technique from Scurgai to the method of Gupta in order to perform cross sectional shaping of the strip while removing excess binder from the strip (See ¶0082). Additionally/alternatively, the shape(s) made by the rolling and cross sectional shaping in Scurgai are used to make planar frameworks (See Figure 4 of Scurgai), making this forming technique and shape advantageous for that purpose.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known compression/rolling into a cable shape technique from Scurgai to the method of Gupta because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the reinforcement bar of Gupta will be rolled, compressed and shaped using rollers after the addition of the SCM.
Claim 8
Gupta teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the bar has enhanced pull out strength due to the adhesion of a pozzolan to surrounding cement. (¶0020 teaches the SCMs added to the rebar increase the bond strength between the concrete and the reinforcement.)
Gupta does not explicitly disclose the bar is rectangular with a preferred bending direction. Gupta does disclose the shape of the bar can be flat. (¶0025)
However, Scurgai teaches the use of a rectangular shape with a preferred bending direction. (¶0082 teaches the cable can be formed in a rectangular shape. Figures 4-5 show the cable is bent in a direction.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known compression/rolling into a cable shape technique from Scurgai to the method of Gupta in order to perform cross sectional shaping of the strip while removing excess binder from the strip (See ¶0082). Additionally/alternatively, the shape(s) made by the rolling and cross sectional shaping in Scurgai are used to make planar frameworks (See Figure 4 of Scurgai), making this forming technique and shape advantageous for that purpose.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known compression/rolling into a cable shape technique from Scurgai to the method of Gupta because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the reinforcement bar of Gupta will be rolled, compressed and shaped using rollers after the addition of the SCM into a rectangular form.
Claims 9, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (US20150344367A1), as applied in Claim 1, further in view of Edwards (US6612085B2).
Claim 9
Gupta teaches the method of claim 1.
Gupta does not disclose where the bar has notches on the outer edges to enable locking with other rebar or forms making mechanical assembly possible without external fasteners.
However Edwards teaches a rebar with notches on the outer edges to enable locking with other rebar or forms making mechanical assembly possible without external fasteners. (Figure 4B teaches the rebar (408) having notches on the outer end edges.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known rebar with notches technique of Edwards to the rebar manufacturing method of Gupta in order to create a shape that facilitates anchoring of the member through wedging action. (See Edwards, Col. 8, Lines 25-28)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known rebar with notches technique of Edwards to the rebar manufacturing method of Gupta because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the rebar of Gupta will have the notched ends.
Claim 14
Gupta teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the rebar is a strip shape. (¶0025 teaches the rebar can be flat.)
Gupta does not disclose wherein the strip is twisted along the long axis.
However Edwards teaches a rebar wherein the strip is twisted along the long axis. (Figure 1B shows the strip of rebar is twisted along the long axis.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known rebar with a twisted shape technique of Edwards to the rebar manufacturing method of Gupta in order to create a shape that increases the mechanical interlocking with the concrete. (See Edwards, Col. 5, Lines 23-25)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known rebar with a twisted shape technique of Edwards to the rebar manufacturing method of Gupta because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the rebar of Gupta will be twisted.
Claim 17
Gupta teaches the method of claim 1.
Gupta does not disclose the strip is mechanically bound together due to the modification of the shape allowing cages and meshes to be quickly woven.
However, Edwards teaches the strip is mechanically bound together due to the modification of the shape allowing cages and meshes to be quickly woven. (Figure 1G teaches a rebar (81) that is made from smaller strands (82) mechanically bound together by weaving or twisting. The claim states that the benefit of allowing cages and meshes to be quickly woven comes from the mechanically bound together shape.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known rebar with a woven shape technique of Edwards to the rebar manufacturing method of Gupta in order to create a shape that can form a thicker rebar and have enhanced mechanical interlock with the concrete (See Edwards, Col. 5, Lines 23-25 and 33-35)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known rebar with a woven twisted shape technique of Edwards to the rebar manufacturing method of Gupta because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the rebar of Gupta will be twisted or woven.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (US20150344367A1), as applied in Claim 1, further in view of Carraher (US20080118304A1).
Claim 10
Gupta teaches the method of claim 1.
Gupta does not disclose where different sizes of rebar are color coded to allow ease of assembly and visual inspection.
However, Carraher teaches a product where different sizes of rebar connectors are color coded to allow ease of assembly and visual inspection. (¶0023 teaches that the devices are color coded to aid in quick, visual identification of the conduit size or size combinations corresponding with various rebar gauges.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known color coding technique of Carraher to the rebar manufacturing method of Gupta in order to aid in visual identification of the size or size combinations corresponding with various rebar gauges. (Carraher ¶0023)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known color coding technique of Carraher to the rebar manufacturing method of Gupta because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the rebar manufactured by Gupta will be color coded.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (US20150344367A1), as applied in Claim 1, further in view of Kim (KR100958439B1).
Claim 11
Gupta teaches the method of claim 1.
Gupta does not disclose the holes and mechanical forms are impressed in the strips to allow ease of assembly with fasteners. It is noted that neither holes or mechanical forms has antecedent basis or is shown in the drawings.
However, Kim teaches rebar with holes and mechanical forms are impressed in the strips to allow ease of assembly with fasteners. (Figure 1a and 1b show rebar with mechanical forms (ribs, 2) and holes therebetween. Figures 2-3 show that these structures allow for ease of assembly with a fastener (20 or 30).
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the known interleaved ribs and holes structure of Kim to the rebar of Gupta in order to provide a surface for interaction with fasteners (See Figures 2-3 of Kim)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to combine the known interleaved ribs and holes structure of Kim to the rebar of Gupta because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to combine prior art structures according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The predictable result is the outer surface of the rebar in Gupta will have ribs and holes therebetween.
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (US20150344367A1), as applied in Claim 1, further in view of Jun (KR102475598B1) (text citations are from the machine translation).
Claim 13
Gupta teaches the method of claim 1.
Gupta does not disclose wherein the strip is split allowing the easy creation of interleaved baskets or cages with less labor and greater integration of vertical and horizontal sections of the rebar cage or structure.
However, Jun teaches wherein the strip is split (Figure 8 teaches cutters (110 or 111) that are used to split the strip material into individual sections.) allowing the easy creation of interleaved baskets or cages with less labor and greater integration of vertical and horizontal sections of the rebar cage or structure. (Having the strip be in individual sections, as taught by Jun, allows for easier handling versus an elongate member.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known strip splitting technique of Jun to the manufacturing method of Gupta in order to use a cutting machine that generates less noise and dust (the laser, See ¶0097 of Jun) or to cut multiple pieces at the same time (the circular saw, See ¶0098 of Jun)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known strip splitting technique of Jun to the manufacturing method of Gupta because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the rebar of Gupta will be cut into individual lengths.
Claim 16
Gupta teaches the method of claim 1.
Gupta does not disclose wherein the strip is split into sections allowing other strips to be inserted at 90 degrees or another angle, to provide mechanical interaction.
However, Jun teaches wherein the strip is split (Figure 8 teaches cutters (110 or 111) that are used to split the strip material into individual sections.) allowing other strips to be inserted at 90 degrees or another angle, to provide mechanical interaction. (Having the strip be in individual sections, as taught by Jun, allows for individual sections to be placed at 90 degrees or another angle in relation to one another and provide mechanical interaction.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known strip splitting technique of Jun to the manufacturing method of Gupta in order to use a cutting machine that generates less noise and dust (the laser, See ¶0097 of Jun) or to cut multiple pieces at the same time (the circular saw, See ¶0098 of Jun)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known strip splitting technique of Jun to the manufacturing method of Gupta because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the rebar of Gupta will be cut into individual lengths.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited Form.
US-20210017766-A1 teaches an FRP rebar manufacturing method. (Figure 1)
US-20180195285-A1 teaches the use of FRP rebar with bends and angled portions. (Figure 2)
US-20130239503-A1 teaches a rebar in the form of a flat ribbon. (Figure 1)
US-20130316104-A1 teaches rebar in the form of a twisted shape. (Figures 1-2)
US-20020177003-A1 teaches rebar with an added coating during rolling. The coating is a blast furnace slag. (Figure 4)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Hotchkiss whose telephone number is (571)272-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 0800-1600.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/MICHAEL W HOTCHKISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726