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
Receipt of a certified copy of US Pro. App. 63/158,981 filed March 10, 2021 is acknowledge. A copy of WO 2022/192394, the WIPO publication of PCT/US 2022/019539 filed March 9, 2022 is attached.
Response to Restriction Election
Applicant’s election of Group I, Claims 1-11 and 14-15, in the reply filed on January 23, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 16-20, 22, and 23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventive group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Restriction Election filed January 23, 2026 and Claims filed September 8, 2023.
Claims Filing Date
September 8, 2023
Pending
1-11, 14-20, 22, 23
Withdrawn
16-20, 22, 23
Under Examination
1-11, 14, 15
Drawings Objections
The drawings are objected to because
Fig. 1 reference numerals 100, 112, 116 are not mentioned in applicant’s specification.
Fig. 5a includes reference numeral 222, which according to applicant’s specification at [0029], refers to “a number of turns”. Reference numeral 222 in Fig. 5a does not appear to be pointing to “a number of turns”.
Fig. 6 includes reference numeral 210, which according to applicant’s specification at [0021] is a levitation coil. However, the arrow for reference numeral 210 does not appear to be pointing to anything, including not a levitation coil.
Figs. 7a-7b do not include reference numerals 700 nor 710. Applicant’s specification at [0031] recites “FIGS. 7a-7b shows SEM images 700, 710”.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 1 line 6 “an evaporation flux achieved at a surface of the metal droplets result in” is grammatically incorrect.
Claim 10 line 1 “the metal particle are” is grammatically incorrect.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 6, 7, 11, and 14 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 5 line 1 “the carrier gas” renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis. Claim 5 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 does not recite a carrier gas. Claim 2 line 5 recites “a carrier gas”.
Claim 6 line 2 “heating the metal particles up to 2500K” renders the claim indefinite. Does this require the metal particles to be heated to 2500K or to be heated to a temperature with an upper limit of 2500K? For the purpose of examination claim 6 will be interpreted as heating to a temperature with an upper limit of 2500K.
Claim 7 line 2 “heated to 1640K to 1940K” renders the claim indefinite. Does this require heating in the entire range of 1640K to 1940K or heating to a temperature within the range of 1640K to 1940K? For the purpose of examination claim 7 will be interpreted as heating to a temperature within the range of 1640K to 1940K.
Claim 11 line 2 “a droplet temperature of the metal particles” renders the claim indefinite. What is a “droplet temperature”? Is it a temperature at which the droplets form? Is it the actual temperature of the droplets? If it refers to the temperature at which the droplets form, then how can it be modulated (modified, controlled, or varied) if they form at a set temperature? For the purpose of examination claim 11 will be interpreted as modulating the actual temperature of the droplets.
Claim 11 line 5 “the carrier” renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis. Claim 11 line 5 will be interpreted as referring to the carrier gas.
Claim 14 line 2 “the heated droplets” renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis. The claim 1 lines 4-5 heat metal particles into metal droplets, but does not recite heated droplets.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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, 4-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ortega (Ortega et al. Phase, size and shape controlled formation of aerosol generated nickel and nickel oxide nanoparticles. Journal of Alloys and Compounds 579 (2013) 495-501.).
Regarding claim 1, Ortega discloses a method of assembling metal particles into nanoparticles (Abstract), the method comprising:
electromagnetically levitating the metal particles (2. Materials and methods);
inductively heating the electromagnetically levitated metal particles beyond their melting point into metal droplets (heated up to melting and vaporization by the action of the electromagnetic field) (2. Materials and methods); and
wherein an evaporation flux (precursors) achieved at a surface of the metal droplets result in a supersaturation of metal atoms around the metal droplets (region) leading to nucleation and growth of the nanoparticles (aerosol nanoparticles take place in a region around the droplet, where atoms from the evaporated precursors condense and eventually form clusters) (2. Materials and methods, 4. Discussion paras. 1, 4, 5. Conclusions).
Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. “There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102.” This same rationale should also apply to process claims claimed in terms of function, property or characteristic. Therefore, a 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejection is appropriated for these types of claims as well as composition claims. MPE 2112(III).
Regarding claim 4, Ortega discloses the metal particles are Cu, Mn, Fe, Ni, or Ti (Ni) (Abstract, 2. Materials and methods, 3. Results, Samples S1, S2, S3, Table 1, Fig. 1, 5. Conclusions).
Regarding claim 5, Ortega discloses the carrier gas is He or Ar (2. Materials and methods, Table 1 Samples S1, S2, S3, 4. Discussion para. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Ortega discloses heating the metal particles up to 2500K (Ni heated up to melting and vaporization, which melts at 1726K) (2. Materials and methods).
Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the property is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. “There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102.” MPE 2112(III).
Regarding claim 7, Ortega discloses the metal particles are heated to 1640K to 1940K (Ni heated up to melting and vaporization, which melts at 1726K) (2. Materials and methods).
Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the property is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. “There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102.” MPE 2112(III).
Regarding claim 9, Ortega discloses the metal droplets have a spherical shape (3. Results para. 2, Fig. 2, 4. Discussion para. 4, 5. Conclusions).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2, 3, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortega (Ortega et al. Phase, size and shape controlled formation of aerosol generated nickel and nickel oxide nanoparticles. Journal of Alloys and Compounds 579 (2013) 495-501.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morozov (Morozov et al. Electric field-assisted levitation-jet aerosol synthesis of Ni/NiO nanoparticles. J. Mater. Chem., 2012, 22, 11214.).
Regarding claim 2, Ortega discloses the electromagnetically levitated metal particles are inductively heated in an electromagnetic levitation field in a tubular member (thin quartz tube) (2. Materials and methods), the method further comprising:
injecting a carrier gas into one end of the tubular member (metal droplet blown up by a gas stream consisting of Ar or He) (2. Materials and methods, 4. Discussion para. 4); and
transporting the nanoparticles with the carrier gas to an other end of the tubular member (inert gas flow precludes nanoparticle contact with surfaces, minimizing particle formation over them) (Abstract, 1. Introduction para. 3, 2. Materials and methods, 4. Discussion para. 4).
Ortega discloses a levitation-jet aerosol synthesis (Abstract).
Ortega is silent to the electromagnetic levitation coil arranged around a tubular member.
Morozov discloses electromagnetically levitated metal particles are inductively heated in an electromagnetic levitation coil arranged around a tubular member (2. Experimental, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the electromagnetic levitation field of Ortega to be applied by an electromagnetic levitation coil arranged around a tubular member because this is the arrangement of a levitation-jet apparatus for producing aerosol nanoparticles (Morozov 2. Experimental, Fig. 1), which precludes any contact with surfaces, minimizing nanoparticle formation over them (Ortega 1. Introduction para. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Ortega in view of Morozov discloses employing an external magnetic field from the levitation coil during particle formation (HF electromagnetic field levitation) by random particle aggregation (aerosol nanoparticles take place in a region around the droplet, where atoms from the evaporated precursors condense and eventually form clusters) (Ortega 2. Materials and methods, 4. Discussion paras. 1, 4).
The limitation such that directional interactions of a magnetic H-field compete with random particle aggregation has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claim process. The prior art discloses a process that reads on that claimed (Ortega Abstract, 2. Materials and methods; Morozov 2. Experimental, Fig. 1), such that directional interactions of a magnetic H-field compete with random particle aggregation natural flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 10, Ortega is silent to the metal particle being electromagnetically levitated at an electromagnetic field strength of 110 kA/m to 340 kA/m.
Morozov discloses metal particles are electromagnetically levitated at an electric field strength, where the intensity of the applied electric field correlates with the average particle size, with higher intensities resulting in higher average particle sizes, which is associated with decreasing specific surface area (Abstract, 2. Experimental, 3.1 BET characterization, Fig. 2, 3.2 TEM paras. 2, 7, Table 1, Fig. 5, 4. Conclusions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Ortega to adjust the electromagnetic field strength to adjust the average particle size (Morozov Abstract, 2. Experimental, 3.1 BET characterization, Fig. 2, 3.2 TEM paras. 2, 7, Table 1, Fig. 5, 4. Conclusions).
Therefore, the electromagnetic field strength is recognized by Morozov as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, such that determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortega (Ortega et al. Phase, size and shape controlled formation of aerosol generated nickel and nickel oxide nanoparticles. Journal of Alloys and Compounds 579 (2013) 495-501.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jin (CN 109554600 machine translation).
Regarding claim 8, Ortega is silent to removing surface impurities on the metal particles by ultra-sonication in acetone.
Jin discloses removing surface impurities on metal particles by ultra-sonication in acetone ([0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Ortega for the metal particles to be put into acetone and cleaned with ultrasound to remove surface oil and impurities added during preparation, ensuring the cleanliness of the metal surface for production of high-purity meta (in [0024]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortega (Ortega et al. Phase, size and shape controlled formation of aerosol generated nickel and nickel oxide nanoparticles. Journal of Alloys and Compounds 579 (2013) 495-501.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Babenko (WO 2016/016660).
Regarding claim 8, Ortega is silent to removing surface impurities on the metal particles by ultra-sonication in acetone.
Babenko discloses removing surface impurities on metal particles by ultra-sonication in acetone (13:26 to 14:3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Ortega for the metal particles to be sonicated in acetone in an ultrasonic bath to remove organic carbonaceous impurities (Babenko 13:26 to 14:3).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortega (Ortega et al. Phase, size and shape controlled formation of aerosol generated nickel and nickel oxide nanoparticles. Journal of Alloys and Compounds 579 (2013) 495-501.) in view of Morozov (Morozov et al. Electric field-assisted levitation-jet aerosol synthesis of Ni/NiO nanoparticles. J. Mater. Chem., 2012, 22, 11214.)as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Brooks (Brooks and Cameron. Measurements of the surface tension of the Iron-Silicon system using electromagnetic levitation. ISIJ International, Vol. 40 (2000), Supplement, pp. S157-S159.).
Regarding claim 11, Ortega discloses
selecting a type of the carrier gas to further control the droplet temperature (Ar has a higher density and viscosity compared to Ar, resulting in more efficient cooling) (4. Discussion para. 4); and
maintaining a constant flow of the carrier around the metal droplet (gas flow influences properties of the nanoparticles, especially average size and size distribution) (2. Materials and methods, Table 1, 4. Discussion para. 4).
Ortega is silent to modulating a droplet temperature of the metal particles by varying a field strength of the levitation coils.
Brooks discloses modulating a droplet temperature of the metal particles by varying a field strength of the levitation coils (fine temperature control is obtained by varying the power of the generator, and hence the position of the droplet in the electromagnetic field, and thus the induction heating) (2. Experimental Procedure para. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Ortega to modulate the droplet temperature of the metal particles by varying a field strength of the levitation coils for fine temperature control (Brooks 2. Experimental Procedure para. 1).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortega (Ortega et al. Phase, size and shape controlled formation of aerosol generated nickel and nickel oxide nanoparticles. Journal of Alloys and Compounds 579 (2013) 495-501.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kulagin (Kulagin et al. Determination of the temperature of metal drops in remelting processes. Izvestiya Vysshikh Uchebnykh Zavedenii, Chernaya Metallurgiya (1989), (9), 49-52. STN abstract).
Regarding claim 14, Ortega is silent to monitoring a surface temperature of the heated droplets with a pyrometer.
Kulagin discloses monitoring a surface temperature of the heated droplets with a pyrometer (STN abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Ortega to monitor the surface temperature of the heated droplets with a pyrometer so that the temperature of the droplet can be determined and correlated with the parameters (Kulagin STN abstract) of the crucibleless levitation-jet aerosol method (Ortega Abstract, 2. Materials and methods).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortega (Ortega et al. Phase, size and shape controlled formation of aerosol generated nickel and nickel oxide nanoparticles. Journal of Alloys and Compounds 579 (2013) 495-501.) in view of Kulagin (Kulagin et al. Determination of the temperature of metal drops in remelting processes. Izvestiya Vysshikh Uchebnykh Zavedenii, Chernaya Metallurgiya (1989), (9), 49-52. STN abstract) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Obendrauf (Obendrauf et al. Measurements of Thermophysical Properties of Nickel with a New Highly Sensitive Pyrometer. International Journal of Thermophysics, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1993.).
Regarding claim 15, Ortega in view of Kulagin is silent to calibrating the pyrometer using a recalescence point at a known melting point of the metal particles.
Obendrauf discloses calibrating the pyrometer using a recalescence point at a known melting point of the metal particles (Abstract, 3. Thermophysical Properties of Nickel, 4. Conclusions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Ortega in view of Kulagin to calibrate the pyrometer using a recalescence point at a known melting point of the metal particles to achieve a high sensitivity response in a fast time (Obendrauf Abstract) resulting in more accurate measurements (Obendrauf 3.1. Experiments).
Related Art
Jigatch (Jigatch et al. Synthesis of Zinc Ultrafine Powders via the Guen-Miller Flow-Levitation Method. Physics of Atomic Nuclei, 2015, Vol. 78, No. 12, pp. 1366-1373.)
Jigatech discloses producing Zn ultrafine powders of 0.175 to 1.24 um using the Guen-Miller flow-levitation method with carrier gases of 1) Ar + H2, 2) Ar + He + H2, or 3) H2, gas pressure varied from 0.25 to 1 atm, gas flow rate varied from 0.24 to 2 m/s, and wire feed varied from 15 to 30 g/h (Abstract, Experimental, Conclusions) to produce quasi-spherical particles (Results and Discussion, Figs. 2-3).
Kuskov (Kuskov et al. Synthesis of nanopowders of titanium compounds via Flow-Levitation method and study their properties. International Conference on Synthesis and Consolidation of Powder Materials. IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 558 (2019) 012023.)
Kuskov discloses titanium nanopowders produced by levitating a molten titanium drop inside a high frequency (440 kHz) electromagnetic field produced by a countercurrent inductor coiled around the wall of a cylindrical quarter reactor, where the inductor heats up the metal and an inert gas (Ar) flows steadily to sweet the molten vapor downstream to condense in Zone 1 as nanoparticles (2.1. Methods and materials, Figure 1). Kuskov is directed to further reaction of the titanium nanoparticles to form TiH2 or TiC in Zone 2 (2.1. Method and materials).
Malekzadeh (US 2012/0060649)
Malekzadeh discloses producing silver nanoparticles with a narrow size distribution by electromagnetic levitation ([0002], [0021]) using a copper tube levitation coil ([0022]) placed around a silica glass chamber in which a silver sample is levitated and melted by electromagnetic field of the levitation coil using an electrical powder of 15 kW and electric current of 250 mA at a temperature of 1000°C ([0023], [0046]-[0049]) then further heating to 1130°C to produce silver vapour that cools and condenses by blowing a carrier gas ([0024], [0050]) that is inert such as argon ([0025], [0051]).
Zheng (Zheng et al. Simulation and Analysis of Three-Dimensional Electromagnetism, Heat Transfer, and Gas Flow for Flow-Levitation System. IEEE Transactions on Nanotechnology, Vol. 16, No. 6, November 2017. 1106-1114.)
Zheng optimizes the coil in a magnetic levitation system that forms metal nanoparticles using an aluminum droplet (Abstract), where the flow-levitation (FL) method heats by high-frequency electromagnetic induction coil so that a metal liquid droplet forms, grows, levitates, then induced current vaporizes nanoparticle soot when a high enough temperature is reached and inert gas flows to carry off the soot and form nanoparticles (1. Introduction, IV.A. Comparison Between Experiment and Calculation). Zheng uses an induction coil with a high frequency of 400 kHz and alternating current of 300-400 A (III. Coupled Simulation, Fig. 9).
Tabari (Tabari et al. Experimental Analysis and Characterization of High-Purity Aluminum Nanoparticles (Al-NPs) by Electromagnetic Levitation Gas Condensation (ELGC) Nanomaterials 2020, 10. 2084.)
Tabari discloses producing aluminum nanoparticles (Al-NPs) by electromagnetic levitation gas condensation (ELGC) having spherical morphologies and average diameter of 17 mm using He (Abstract), where processing requiring melting of the bulk Al sample then positioning in the magnetic fields of a levitator where the levitator builds up eddy current that react with the magnetic fields and the produced vapor that can be condensed upon cooling with an inert gas produces high-purity produces, where NPs such as Ag, Ni, Fe, and Zn can be produced by ELGC (2. Methodology). Tabari discloses a schematic of the coil for ELGC using a 15 kW, 450 kHz radio frequency generator and cooling by He or Ar (3. Experimental Setup, Figures 1-2, Table 1), Tabari discloses spherical Al nanoparticles (4.1. Morphology of the Al-NPs, Figures 3-9). Tabari also discloses washing the Al-NPs in dichloromethane to remove organic contamination from the surface (4.3. Phase and Purity of the Al-NPs).
Mohammadi (Mohammadi and Halali. Synthesis and characterization of pure metallic titanium nanoparticles by an electromagnetic levitation melting gas condensation method. RSC Advances. 2014, 4, 7104-7108.)
Mohammadi discloses pure titanium nanoparticles synthesized by electromagnetic levitation melting gas condensation (ELM-GC) by melting and evaporating bulk titanium samples in a silica tube and employing high purity argon and helium carrier gases and cooling agents to product titanium nanoparticles (Abstract) using a 15 kW, 450 kHz RF generator and electromagnetic levitation coils to heat above the melting point of titanium (2. Experimental procedure, Figs. 1-2) synthesized with a substantially spherical morphology (Figs. 5-7).
Krauss (Krauss and Fritsching. Particle temperature measurement in atomization of molten metals. Chemie Ingenieur Technik (2004), 76(6), 787-790. STN abstract. )
Krauss discloses high speed pyrometry as a non-intrusive method in determinations of temperatures in metal atomization procedures, such as measuring the temperature of individual particles (STN abstract).
Greenwood (Greenwood. The Boiling Point of Metals. Chemical News and Journal of Industrial Science (1912), 104, 31-3, 42-5. STN abstract)
Greenwood discloses using a pyrometer to record when vaporization becomes sufficiently vigorous to cause a project of drops of metal from a surface (STN abstract).
Hopkins (GB 282,424)
Hopkins discloses calibrating a pyrometer for accurate and reliable reading using molten metal (1:10-45).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday-Friday 7am-12pm.
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, KEITH WALKER can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights