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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-174373, filed on October 31, 2022.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show first and second surface regions of the third magnetic metal particle "31c" and "32c" in Fig. 5 as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is constructed of two paragraphs as opposed to one as required. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 6, 8, 9, and 12 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 6 recites the limitation "the plurality of first oxide regions" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Antecedent basis is provided in claim 5
Claim 8 introduces oxide of an element “B”. Designation of element as “B” leaves room for confusion as to if this element is broadly any element or specifically the element Boron. Thus, claim 8 is indefinite. Claims 9 and 12 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected dependent claim 8. Claim 13 properly cures the deficiencies of claim 8 by defining “B” as Si. For the purposes of examination, element “A” and element “B” are interpreted as any elements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanada et al (US PGPub 20200312503) in view of Ishiwata et al (US PGPub 20200312513).
Regarding claim 1, Tanada teaches preparation of a winding-type coil component containing a core component which is understood to be a magnetic base body (paragraph [0023]). The core component is constituted by soft magnetic alloy grains (thus soft magnetic metal particles) containing Fe, Si, and at least one of Cr and Al as constituent elements and an oxide layer around the soft magnetic alloy grains (thus an insulating film). The oxide layer contains Si. There can be additional oxide layers of Cr and of Al. In paragraph [0039], Tanada describes inclusion of Cr and Al oxides due to the excellent oxidation resistance they provide. Furthermore, in paragraphs [0063] and [0083], Tanada discloses unavoidable formation of Fe oxides into oxide regions or by diffusion of Fe, thus oxide regions that contain Fe. In Tanada’s embodiment, each oxide region of different elemental composition (Si vs Al vs Cr/Fe) can be considered first (Fe/Cr), second (Al), and third (Si) regions. Thus, the magnetic base body of Tanada contains a plurality of soft magnetic metal particles and a plurality of insulating films whereby the insulating films cover a surface of soft magnetic metal particles. One of the insulating films of Tanada can be considered a first insulating film including one or more first oxide regions whereby the first oxide region(s) contains Fe and Cr due to including Cr for oxidation resistance in the powder mix and unavoidable oxidation of Fe in the process disclosed. Tanada is silent on the Raman spectrum of their embodiment. The Raman peak intensities are well understood in the art to be an inherent property of the tested composition, whereby the peaks are a “chemical fingerprint”. Additionally, the peak at 730cm-1 would be provided by FeCr2O4. Further, the process disclosed by Tanada is nearly identical to that of the instant disclosure. The instant disclosure teaches that such a structure is created by providing raw powder of Fe (95wt% or more), Cr (0.5-1.5wt%), Al (1-3wt%), and Si (0.5-3wt%, paragraph [0064]). A binder resin and solvent are further mixed therein. The mix is degreased at 300°C to 500°C (paragraph [0070]) prior to a first heat treatment in an O2 environment of 5-1000ppm at a temperature of 750°C-900°C for 1-6hrs (paragraph [0071]). A second heat treatment (paragraph [0072]) is performed in an O2 environment of 1000-10000 ppm at 500-700°C for 1-6hrs (paragraph [0077]). In paragraph [0059], Tanada mixes powders of 1-10wt% Si, 0.5-5wt% Cr, 0.2-3wt% Al, and the remainder Fe. Tanada also adds a binder or thermoplastic resin to the powder (paragraphs [0076-78]), which typically would include a solvent. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed. Tanada discloses a degreasing step afterwards at a decomposition temperature of 200-500°C (paragraph [0080]). In paragraphs [0081-86], Tanada describes a first heat treatment step at 5-800ppm O2, 500-900°C, for 30min-5hrs. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed. Then in paragraph [0088] Tanada describes a second heat treatment at O2 of 5-800ppm and a temperature of 500-600°C without mention of a time period; however, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to utilize the same timing of the prior heat treatment as a known time period for heat treating to provide oxide layers on soft magnetic powders. The second heat treatment of Tanada is for the purpose of creating an exterior layer containing an oxide of Fe. Those of ordinary skill would expect this second heat treatment, being at a lower temperature and a similar oxygen concentration to have the same effect as the second heat treatment claimed and disclosed and would have expected the layer created to contain FeCr2O4. Tanada’s disclosed O2 range is just below the second heat treatment range of the instant disclosure. In an analogous magnetic base body preparation of Fe, Al, Cr, and Si powders and thereby forming insulating oxide films around the powders, Ishiwata similarly provides heat treatment(s) in an oxidizing environment whereby an O2 environment of 5-3000ppm and a temperature of 600-900°C is provided for 20-120minutes (paragraph [0049]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to utilize the overlapping portion of the O2 range provided by Ishiwata in the second heat treatment step of Tanada as a known preferred O2 environment for heat treating soft magnetic powders to provide oxide regions and arrive at the invention as claimed through arrival to an identical process. Thus, while both Tanada and Ishiwata do not disclose the claimed Raman spectra properties, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the exemplified magnetic base bodies to inherently have the claimed properties absent any showing to the contrary since they fall within the claimed composition and would be produced by an identical process. See MPEP2112.01II. Therefore, Tanada and Ishiwata teach the claimed “A magnetic base body comprising:a plurality of soft magnetic metal particles; and a plurality of insulating films covering surfaces of the plurality of soft magnetic metal particles, wherein the plurality of soft magnetic metal particles include a first soft magnetic metal particle, wherein the plurality of insulating films include a first insulating film covering a surface of the first soft magnetic metal particle, and wherein the first insulating film includes one or more first oxide regions, the one or more first oxide regions containing Fe and Cr and having a peak intensity at 730 cm-1 in a Raman spectrum obtained by Raman spectrometry.”.
Regarding claim 2, Tanada and Ishiwata teach the magnetic base body of claim 1. As described in the rejection of claim 1 above, Tanada and Ishiwata are silent on the Raman spectra. Those of ordinary skill would expect the material produced by the joint process of Tanada and Ishiwata to have the same structure as claimed, whereby the peak intensity at 730cm-1 in the Raman spectrum in the one or more first oxide regions (Fe and Cr containing) is higher than a peak intensity at 680 cm-1 in the first oxide region. Thus, Tanada and Ishiwata teach the claimed “The magnetic base body of claim 1, wherein the peak intensity at 730 cm-1 in the Raman spectrum obtained by Raman spectrometry in the one or more first oxide regions is higher than a peak intensity at 680 cm-1 in the Raman spectrum obtained by Raman spectrometry in the one or more first oxide regions.”.
Regarding claim 3, Tanada and Ishiwata teach the magnetic base body of claim 1. As described in the rejection of claim 1 above, Tanada and Ishiwata are silent on the Raman spectra. Those of ordinary skill would expect the material produced by the joint process of Tanada and Ishiwata to have the same structure as claimed, whereby the peak intensity at 730cm-1 in the Raman spectrum in the one or more first oxide regions (Fe and Cr containing) is higher than a peak intensity at 300 cm-1 in the first oxide region. Thus, Tanada and Ishiwata teach the claimed “The magnetic base body of claim 1, wherein the peak intensity at 730 cm-1 in the Raman spectrum obtained by Raman spectrometry in the one or more first oxide regions is higher than a peak intensity at 300 cm-1 in the Raman spectrum obtained by Raman spectrometry in the one or more first oxide regions.”.
Regarding claim 4, Tanada and Ishiwata teach the magnetic base body of claim 1. Tanada and Ishiwata are silent on the spacing of the first oxide regions apart from the surface of the first soft magnetic metal particle as claimed. Those of ordinary skill would expect the material produced by the joint process of Tanada and Ishiwata to have the same structure as claimed, whereby the one or more first oxide regions are spaced apart from the surface of the first soft magnetic metal particle. Thus, Tanada and Ishiwata teach the claimed “The magnetic base body of claim 1, wherein the one or more first oxide regions are spaced apart from the surface of the first soft magnetic metal particle.”.
Regarding claim 5, Tanada and Ishiwata teach the magnetic base body of claim 1. Those of ordinary skill would expect the material produced by the joint process of Tanada and Ishiwata to have the same structure as claimed, whereby the first insulating film includes a plurality of first oxide regions, the plurality of first oxide regions containing Fe and Cr and having a peak intensity at 730 cm-1 in a Raman spectrum obtained by Raman spectrometry, and wherein the plurality of first oxide regions are spaced apart. Thus, Tanada and Ishiwata teach the claimed “The magnetic base body of claim 1, wherein the first insulating film includes a plurality of first oxide regions, the plurality of first oxide regions containing Fe and Cr and having a peak intensity at 730 cm1 in a Raman spectrum obtained by Raman spectrometry, and wherein the plurality of first oxide regions are spaced apart from each other.”.
Regarding claim 6, Tanada and Ishiwata teach the magnetic base body of claim 4. Tanada and Ishiwata are silent on the claimed limtiations regarding spacing of first oxide regions. Those of ordinary skill would expect the material produced by the joint process of Tanada and Ishiwata to have the same structure as claimed, wherein the plurality of first oxide regions are spaced apart from each other in a circumferential direction around a geometric center of the first soft magnetic metal particle. Thus, Tanada and Ishiwata teach the claimed “The magnetic base body of claim 4, wherein the plurality of first oxide regions are spaced apart from each other in a circumferential direction around a geometric center of the first soft magnetic metal particle”.
Regarding claim 7, Tanada and Ishiwata teach the magnetic base body of claim 1. In Figs. 1b and 2a, Tanada provides a rough depiction of the particles/alloy grains (1b vs 2a) whereby in 1b first, second, and third magnetic particles are depicted adjacent to one another spaced by a gap whereby the gap contains the oxide layer which contains the oxide regions. Thus, Tanada and Ishiwata teach the claimed “The magnetic base body of claim 1 wherein the plurality of soft magnetic metal particles include a second soft magnetic metal particle and a third soft magnetic metal particle, the second soft magnetic metal particle being adjacent to the first soft magnetic metal particle, the third soft magnetic metal particle being adjacent to the first and second soft magnetic metal particles, and wherein at least a part of a gap present among the first soft magnetic metal particle, the second soft magnetic metal particle, and the third soft magnetic metal particle is defined by the one or more first oxide regions.”.
Regarding claim 8, Tanada and Ishiwata teach the magnetic base body of claim 1. As described in the rejection of claim 1, Tanada describes multiple oxide regions whereby one region contains Fe/Cr (akin to “first oxide region” as claimed), one region contains Al (akin to “second oxide region of element A” as claimed), and one region contains Si (akin to “third oxide region of element B” as claimed) constituting an insulating film that contacts regions of the magnetic metal particles. Tanada and Ishiwata are silent on the exact surface contacts of their oxide regions. However, as described above, the joint process of Tanada as informed by Ishiwata would enable one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the invention as claimed through arrival of an identical process. Those of ordinary skill would expect the material produced by the joint process of Tanada and Ishiwata to have the same structure as claimed. Thus, Tanada and Ishiwata teach the claimed “The magnetic base body of claim 1, wherein the first insulating film further includes one or more second oxide regions and one or more third oxide regions, the one or more second oxide regions containing an oxide of an element A as a main component and covering a first surface region constituting a part of the surface of the first soft magnetic metal particle, the one or more third oxide regions containing an oxide of an element B as a main component and covering a second surface region of the first soft magnetic metal particle different from the first surface region”.
Regarding claim 9, Tanada and Ishiwata teach the magnetic base body of claim 8. Although the oxide region compositions do not match as identically claimed, Tanada depicts in Fig. 2 oxide regions that are located on radially outer sides of different oxide regions. Regardless, those of ordinary skill would expect the material produced by the joint process of Tanada and Ishiwata to have the same structure as claimed. Thus, Tanada and Ishiwata teach the claimed “The magnetic base body of claim 8, wherein the one or more first oxide regions are located on a radially outer side of the one or more second oxide regions.”.
Regarding claim 10, Tanada and Ishiwata teach the magnetic base body of claim 1. Tanada describes providing both Fe and Si as raw powder materials for the soft magnetic metal particles. Thus, Tanada and Ishiwata teach the claimed “The magnetic base body of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of soft magnetic metal particles contains Fe and Si”.
Regarding claim 11, Tanada and Ishiwata teach the magnetic base body of claim 10. In paragraph [0059], Tanada mixes powders of 1-10wt% Si, 0.5-5wt% Cr, 0.2-3wt% Al, and the remainder (82-98.3%) Fe. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed. Further, in the provided example, Tanada uses 95wt% Fe. Thus, Tanada and Ishiwata teach the claimed “The magnetic base body of claim 10, wherein a content percentage of Fe in each of the plurality of soft magnetic metal particles is 95 wt% or more”.
Regarding claim 12, Tanada and Ishiwata teach the magnetic base body of claim 8. Further, Tanada teaches use of Si and Al in their powder as separate elemental components. Si can be considered element “B” as claimed and is more apt to oxidation (an inherent property) than Fe. Al can be considered element “A” as claimed and is more apt to oxidation compared to Si. Thus, Tanada and Ishiwata teach the claimed “The magnetic base body of The magnetic base body of wherein the element B is more apt to oxidation than Fe, and wherein the element A is more apt to oxidation than the element B.”.
Regarding claim 13, Tanada and Ishiwata teach the magnetic base body of claim 12. Further, Tanada uses Al and Si. Thus, Tanada and Ishiwata teach the claimed “The magnetic base body of claim 12 wherein the element A is Al, and wherein the element B is Si.”.
Regarding claim 14, Tanada and Ishiwata teach the magnetic base body of claim 1. Further, Tanada describes the base body is a core member of a winding-type coil component which also contains a coil conductive wire wound around the core member (Claim 1 and paragraphs [00111-12]). Thus Tanada and Ishiwata teach the claimed “A coil component comprising: the magnetic base body of claim 1, and a coil conductor provided in the magnetic base body”.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanada et al in view of Ishiwata et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsutani et al (US PGPub 20160151836).
Regarding claim 4, Tanada and Ishiwata teach the magnetic base body of claim 1. As described in above rejections, Tanada and Ishiwata do not directly disclose oxide regions spaced apart from one another. Matsutani teaches an analogous magnetic base body comprising Fe based magnetic metal particles surrounded by unique oxide layers for use in a coil component. The body of Matsutani comprises soft magnetic metal powders (particles) including at least a first soft magnetic particle (See Paragraph 26; Fig 2). Matsutani teaches a plurality of insulating films that are interposed between the particles and interacting with the surfaces thereof. The first insulating film includes a first oxide region (2) and a second oxide region (3). The first oxide may contain an oxide of an element A as a main component. Matsutani teaches that such an element may be selected from Al, Cr, Ti, Mg, Ni, Si and Ca (See Paragraph 30). Matsutani teaches that the second oxide may be a composite oxide containing ferrite (Mn,Ni,Zn series) or materials such as FeAl2O4, wherein the second oxide contains at least one element in common with the first oxide (See Paragraph 46; Element B selected from Mn, Ni, Zn, Al, Fe, Cr, Ti, Mg, Ni,Si,Ca). The first and second oxide comprise said insulating film and are disposed in a first and second region constituting parts of the surface of the magnetic metal particle, wherein the first and second region may be different (See Figure 2). Each of the first oxide regions of Matsutani are spaced apart from one another creating a plurality of regions. Under variation 1 of Second Exemplary Embodiment (paragraphs [0100-101], Matsutani explains why having spacing between oxide regions is beneficial with a third oxide being provided. When the soft-magnetic metal powder is internally oxidized, a recess is formed whereby a third oxide separate from first and second oxides is formed in said recess on the surface of the powder or particle. When a third oxide is formed separately from first oxide (thus spaced apart from surface of magnetic metal particle via recess), an internal stress is increased, so that a large second recess is formed which further improves adhesion forces. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to space apart the one or more first oxide regions from the surface of the first soft magnetic metal particle such that another oxide region can form there in between to improve adhesion forces. Therefore, Tanada, Ishiwata, and Matsutani teach the claimed “The magnetic base body of claim 1, wherein the one or more first oxide regions are spaced apart from the surface of the first soft magnetic metal particle.”.
Regarding claim 5, Tanada and Ishiwata teach the magnetic base body of claim 1 and arrival to the base body via identical process enables arrival to the limitation pertaining to Raman spectrum peak intensity. Matsutani teaches an analogous magnetic base body comprising Fe based magnetic metal particles surrounded by unique oxide layers for use in a coil component. The body of Matsutani comprises soft magnetic metal powders (particles) including at least a first soft magnetic particle (See Paragraph 26; Fig 2). Matsutani teaches a plurality of insulating films that are interposed between the particles and interacting with the surfaces thereof. The first insulating film includes a first oxide region (2) and a second oxide region (3). The first oxide may contain an oxide of an element A as a main component. Matsutani teaches that such an element may be selected from Al, Cr, Ti, Mg, Ni, Si and Ca (See Paragraph 30). Matsutani teaches that the second oxide may be a composite oxide containing ferrite (Mn,Ni,Zn series) or materials such as FeAl2O4, wherein the second oxide contains at least one element in common with the first oxide (See Paragraph 46; Element B selected from Mn, Ni, Zn, Al, Fe, Cr, Ti, Mg, Ni,Si,Ca). The first and second oxide comprise said insulating film and are disposed in a first and second region constituting parts of the surface of the magnetic metal particle, wherein the first and second region may be different (See Figure 2). Each of the first oxide regions of Matsutani are spaced apart from one another creating a plurality of regions. Under variation 1 of Second Exemplary Embodiment (paragraphs [0100-101], Matsutani explains why having spacing between oxide regions is beneficial with a third oxide being provided. When the soft-magnetic metal powder is internally oxidized, a recess is formed whereby a third oxide separate from first and second oxides is formed in said recess on the surface of the powder or particle. When a third oxide is formed separately from first oxide (thus spaced apart via recess), an internal stress is increased, so that a large second recess is formed which further improves adhesion forces. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to space apart the one or more first oxide regions from the surface of the first soft magnetic metal particle such that another oxide region can form there in between to improve adhesion forces. Therefore, Tanada, Ishiwata, and Matsutani teach the claimed “The magnetic base body of claim 4, wherein the plurality of first oxide regions are spaced apart from each other in a circumferential direction around a geometric center of the first soft magnetic metal particle”.
Regarding claim 6, Tanada, Ishiwata, and Matsutani teach the magnetic base body of claim 4. Further, Matsutani depicts spacing of oxide regions in a circumferential direction around a geometric center of the metal particle. Thus, Tanada, Ishiwata, and Matsutani teach the claimed “The magnetic base body of claim 4, wherein the plurality of first oxide regions are spaced apart from each other in a circumferential direction around a geometric center of the first soft magnetic metal particle.”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nakajima et al (US PGPub 2020015447) teach preparation of a magnetic base body of Fe, Cr, Al, and Si in a process that falls in line with an embodiment of the instant disclosure.
Orimo et al (US PGPub 20200279676) teach preparation of a magnetic base body of different soft magnetic metal particles surrounding by insulating films of different oxide regions whereby the components of the particles and oxides are Fe, Cr, Al, and Si. Orimo et al (US PGPub 20180374619) teach preparation of soft magnetic metal particles coated by several insulating films of different oxide regions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noa W. F. Grooms whose telephone number is (571)272-9981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
/NWFG/Examiner, Art Unit 1759
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights