Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed September 8, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-2 and 4-19 remain pending in the application, with claims 1-2 and 4-6 being examined, and claims 7-19 deemed withdrawn. Claims 25-28 are newly added, and are pending and examined. Claims 3 and 20-24 are canceled.
Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed June 5, 2026. However, new 112(b) rejections have been raised, as necessitated by the amendments to the instant claim set.
Examiner’s Note: the Specification section included in the previous Non-Final Office Action was not an objection, but rather directed to an observation that the Specification included a trade name or a mark used in commerce. Because the Specification as amended still includes a trade name or a mark used in commerce, these observations have been included in the instant Office Action as well, in the Specification section below.
Examiner’s Further Note: the instant claim set received 9/8/2026 does not match the previously examined claim set. For instance, the previously examined claim set does not recite, “a system of filter candles” in claim 1, although this has been shown in un-marked text in the instant claim set at Claim 1, Ln. 4, which would indicate that this limitation was included in a prior claim set. Despite this error, the claims have been examined as recited in the instant claim set.
Based on Applicant’s amendments and remarks, the previous prior art rejection has been modified to address the claim amendments.
Specification
The use of the term SiliaCat®, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application (see Pg. 21 2nd Para. of the instant Specification). The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, Ln. 5 recites, “controling", which is a typo of “controlling”.
Regarding claim 2, Ln. 9 recites, “a heating collar a valve”, which is grammatically incorrect. The above limitation needs to be amended to recite, “a heating collar; a valve” to be grammatically correct.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation “high pressure” has been examined as pressures greater than 1 MPa, as defined in Pg. 4 5th Para. of the instant Specification.
The limitation “high temperature” has been examined as temperatures above approximately 50°C, as defined in Pg. 4 6th Para. of the instant Specification.
Examiner’s Note: the limitations “high pressure” and “high temperature” appear in the preamble for claim 1, and therefore necessitate the above interpretations for purposes of the claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “controlling means allowing the reactors to be individually and independently controlled” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Rather, the limitation “controlling means allowing the reactors to be individually and independently controlled” has been examined as a controller or any piece of equipment capable of affecting the operating conditions of an individual reactor.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-2, 4-6, and 25-28 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.
Regarding claim 1, Ln. 4 recites, “a system of filter candles between each of the N reactors”. However, it is unclear if this limitation means that each of the N reactors has a system of filter candles between each reactor, or whether the system of filter candles has a filter candle of the system of filter candles between each reactor. Further clarification is needed. For purposes of compact prosecution, the above limitation has been interpreted as a system of filter candles, where a filter candle of the system of filter candles is between each of the N reactors.
Further regarding claim 1, 6th to Last Ln. – 5th to Last Ln. recite, “the system of filter candles has a porosity in a range from 2 to 50 µm, in a liquid orifice allowing a fluid phase to be in continuous flow…”. However, it is unclear if the liquid orifice is part of the device or not. If so, where is the liquid orifice located in the device? Further clarification is needed. For purposes of compact prosecution, the above limitation has been examined as each filter candle of the system of filter candles being in any of the liquid orifices present in the device.
Claims 2, 4-6, and 25-28 are rejected at least for depending on a rejected claim.
Claim 2, Last Ln. recites, “a filter, at the liquid inlet and outlet”. However, it is unclear how a filter can be positioned at both a liquid inlet and outlet simultaneously. Further clarification is needed. For purposes of compact prosecution, the above limitation has been examined as requiring a filter at the liquid inlet and another filter at the outlet.
Claim 26, 3rd to Last Ln. – Last Ln. recites, “wherein the valve is placed at a bottom of each respective one of the N autoclave reactors and configured to remove…”. However, it is unclear how a single valve can be positioned at a bottom of multiple reactors simultaneously. Further clarification is needed. For purposes of compact prosecution, Claim 26 has been examined as reciting a plurality of valves, where each valve of the plurality of valves is placed at a bottom of each respective one of the N autoclave reactors.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5-6, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norrant et al. (WO Pub. No. 2017/076737; hereinafter Norrant; already of record) in view of Zhang et al. (Translation of CN Pub. No. 206881715; hereinafter Zhang; already of record) and Ohorodnik et al. (US Pat. No. 3,906,660; hereinafter Ohorodnik; already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Norrant discloses a device for chemical reactions under pressure or high pressure and/or under high temperature in continuous flow (Pg. 4 Lns. 19-23, Pg. 8 Ln. 15-Pg. 9 Ln. 8, the reactors are therefore capable of being operated at pressure, high pressure, and/or high temperature, see Fig. 1D). The device comprises:
a cascade of N autoclave reactors interconnected (Pg. 4 Lns. 19-23, Pg. 8 Ln. 15-Pg. 9 Ln. 8, see Fig. 1D).
A system of filters between each of the N reactors (Pg. 5 Lns. 5-6, Pg. 8 Ln. 15-Pg. 9 Ln. 8, see Fig. 1D).
Each of the N autoclave reactors of the cascade comprise controlling means allowing the reactors to be individually and independently controlled (Pg. 5 Lns. 5-6, Pg. 8 Ln. 15-Pg. 9 Ln. 8, see Fig. 1D. a means must intrinsically be present in order to control the reactors in a completely independent manner).
N is a natural integer greater than 1 (see Fig. 1D).
The chemical reactions are Gas - Liquid - Solid or of the Liquid-Solid reactions (Pg. 5 Lns. 5-6, Pg. 8 Ln. 15-Pg. 9 Ln. 8, see Fig. 1D).
The system of filters, in a liquid orifice allowing a fluid phase to be in continuous flow and allowing a solid phase to be in batch (Pg. 5 Lns. 5-6, Pg. 8 Ln. 15-Pg. 9 Ln. 8, see Fig. 1D).
The system of filters retains a catalyst in a respective one of the N autoclave reactors into which the catalyst is introduced during a corresponding one of the chemical reactions (Pg. 5 Lns. 5-6, Pg. 8 Ln. 15-Pg. 9 Ln. 8, see Fig. 1D).
Norrant fails to explicitly disclose:
the filters are filter candles;
the cascade of N autoclave reactors comprises at least two reactors of different volumes that increase or decrease in a direction of the flow of fluids; and
the system of filter candles has a porosity in a range from 2 to 50 µm.
Zhang is in the analogous field of devices for producing chemical products (Zhang Pg. 2 3rd Para.). Zhang teaches a cascade of reactors that comprise at least two reactors of different volumes that increase or decrease in the direction of a flow of fluids (Zhang; Pg. 3 2nd to Last Para., see Fig. 1 at nitration reactors 71-74, which have a gradually decreasing volume). In the cascade of reactors, the volume of the reactors is decreasing (Zhang; Pg. 3 2nd to Last Para., see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Norrant with the teachings of Zhang so that the cascade of N autoclave reactors comprises at least two reactors of different volumes that increase or decrease in a direction of the flow of fluids, where in the cascade of reactors, the volume of the reactors is decreasing, as Zhang teaches that providing a cascade of reactors having decreasing volume in a direction of fluid flow will reduce residence time, improve product quality, improve production rate, and allow for continuous production (Zhang; Pg. 3 2nd to Last Para., see Fig. 1).
Modified Norrant fails to explicitly disclose that:
the filters are filter candles; and
the system of filter candles has a porosity in a range from 2 to 50 µm.
Ohorodnik is in the analogous field of chemical reactors (Ohorodnik Col. 1 Lns. 41-52). Ohorodnik teaches filter candles (Ohorodnik; Col. 2 Lns. 10-27, see Fig. 1 at candle filter 12). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of modified Norrant with the teachings of Ohorodnik so that the filters are filter candles, as Ohorodnik teaches that filter candles can avoid the discharge of catalyst from a reactor during a chemical reaction that requires catalyst (Ohorodnik; Col. 1 Lns. 41-52, Col. 2 Lns. 10-27, see Fig. 1), particularly as Norrant teaches filters at the outlet of each reactor to keep catalyst from leaving each reactor (Norrant Pg. 8 Ln. 15-Pg. 9 Ln. 8).
Modified Norrant fails to explicitly disclose that the system of filter candles has a porosity in a range from 2 to 50 µm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a porosity of between 2 and 50 µm, as it not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges for an optimal pore size of the system of filter candles, and would have required only routine experimentation. The motivation would have been to ensure that catalysts of this particle size or larger are retained within the reactor, while allowing fluids to pass through the reactor.
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “for chemical reactions under pressure or high pressure and/or under high temperature in continuous flow…”, “allowing a fluid phase to be in continuous flow and allowing a solid phase to be in batch”, etc.). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
Regarding claim 5, modified Norrant discloses the device according to Claim 1. Modified Norrant further discloses an N+1th reactor positioned at an end of the cascade of N autoclave reactors interconnected and utilized during a maintenance operation that includes one of the N reactors of the cascade to be isolated (Norrant Pg. 8 Ln. 15-Pg. 9 Ln. 8, reactors can be bypassed or added back in for maintenance or catalyst replacement. Therefore, during maintenance, an N+1th reactor is positioned at the end of the cascade and connected to the process).
Regarding claim 6, modified Norrant discloses the device according to Claim 1. Modified Norrant further discloses that in the cascade of reactors, the volume of the reactors is decreasing and N is greater than or equal to 3 (see Claim 1 above at Zhang teaching that the volume of the reactors is decreasing in Pg. 3 2nd to Last Para., see Fig. 1).
Modified Norrant fails to explicitly disclose that when a respective volume of the N autoclave reactors decreases and N is greater than or equal to 3, if a first autoclave reactor has a volume R1, a second reactor has a volume R2 from R1 to 0.5 R1 and a third reactor has a volume R3 from 0.8 R1 to 0.4 R1.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention so that when a respective volume of the N autoclave reactors decreases and N is greater than or equal to 3, if a first autoclave reactor has a volume R1, a second reactor has a volume R2 from R1 to 0.5 R1 and a third reactor has a volume R3 from 0.8 R1 to 0.4 R1, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), and MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). The motivation would have been that Zhang teaches that providing cascade of reactors having decreasing volume in a direction of fluid flow will reduce residence time, improve product quality, improve production rate, and allow for continuous production (Zhang; Pg. 3 2nd to Last Para., see Fig. 1), and selecting reactor volume sizes as claimed would have been a matter of routine experimentation in order to optimize the product quality, production rate, etc.
Regarding claim 27, modified Norrant discloses the device according to Claim 1. Modified Norrant further discloses that each of the N autoclave reactors is provided with stirring by a hollow self-priming turbine (Norrant Pg. 8 Ln. 15-Pg. 9 Ln. 8, each reactor is equipped with a Rushton self-gas-inducing agitator. See Applicant’s instant Specification at Pg. 17 5th-7th Paras., which states that a Rushton type self-priming turbine has a hollow shaft and hollow impeller).
Regarding claim 28, modified Norrant discloses the device according to Claim 1.
Modified Norrant fails to explicitly disclose that the porosity of the filter candles is in a range from 2 to 5 µm or from 5 to 50 µm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a porosity of between 2 to 5 µm or from 5 to 50 µm, as it not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges for an optimal pore size of the system of filter candles, and would have required only routine experimentation. The motivation would have been to ensure that catalysts of this particle size or larger are retained within the reactor, while allowing fluids to pass through the reactor.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norrant in view of Zhang and Ohorodnik as applied to claims 1, 5-6, and 27-28 above, and further in view of Thierry et al. (US Pub. No. 2004/0019179; hereinafter Thierry; already of record).
Regarding claim 4, modified Norrant discloses the device according to Claim 1.
Modified Norrant fails to explicitly disclose that an online analysis tool PAT (Process Analytical Technology) positioned between each of the N reactors, the PAT using UV, NIR, Raman or a set of on-line spectroscopic and chromatographic composition analyzers, fixed-use sensors, and automated and statistical data.
Thierry is in the analogous field of continuous chemical processes (Thierry [0001]). Thierry teaches an online analysis tool PAT positioned between a plurality of reactors, the PAT using NIR (Thierry; [0104]-[0143], the number of analysis points may monitor the composition of each of the mixtures M1 to M4, see Fig. 1 at near-infrared analysis points, indicated by PIR, that measure between various reactors). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of modified Norrant with the teachings of Thierry so that an online analysis tool PAT (Process Analytical Technology) positioned between each of the N reactors, the PAT using UV, NIR, Raman or a set of on-line spectroscopic and chromatographic composition analyzers, fixed-use sensors, and automated and statistical data, in order to determine the composition of each mixture between the reactors and alter the reaction conditions in order to achieve a desired result (Thierry; [0104]-[0143], [0165], see Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 25-26 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2 would be allowable for reciting that each reactor comprises:
a liquid inlet and outlet,
a bursting disc,
a vent,
an immersion sleeve for parameter measurement,
a sampling valve,
a double jacket,
a heating collar;
a valve placed at a bottom of each and configured for withdrawal of a deactivated catalyst and replacement of the deactivated catalyst with a new catalyst, and
a filter at the liquid inlet and outlet.
Claim 25 would be allowable for reciting that each of the N autoclave reactors comprises:
a liquid inlet and outlet;
a reactive gas inlet;
a bursting disc;
a vent;
an immersion sleeve for parameter measurement;
a sampling valve;
a double jacket;
a heating collar;
a valve placed at a bottom of each reactor and configured to remove a deactivated catalyst and replace the deactivated catalyst with a new catalyst; and
a filter at the respective liquid inlet and outlet.
Claim 26 would be allowable for reciting that each of the N autoclave reactors comprises:
a liquid inlet and outlet;
a reactive gas inlet;
a bursting disc;
a vent;
an immersion sleeve for parameter measurement;
a sampling valve;
a double jacket;
a heating collar;
a valve; and
a frit at the respective liquid inlet and outlet,
wherein the valve is placed at a bottom of each respective one of the N autoclave reactors and configured to remove a deactivated catalyst and replace the deactivated catalyst with a new catalyst.
Norrant, Zhang, Ohorodnik, Zanthoff (US Pub. No. 2007/0104627; hereinafter Zanthoff; already of record), and Thierry teach a device similar to that claimed. However, Norrant, Zhang, Ohorodnik, Zanthoff, and Thierry do not teach, either alone or in combination with the prior art of record, that each reactor comprises the above claimed features. Specifically, although Norrant teaches that each reactor is provided with a liquid inlet and outlet, and a filter at the liquid outlet (Norrant; Pg. 5 Lns. 5-6, Pg. 8 Ln. 15-Pg. 9 Ln. 8, see Fig. 1D), Norrant does not teach that each reactor comprises the remainder of the above claimed features, and modifying the reactors of Norrant to have the above claimed features would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant stated in Pg. 10 of their Remarks that the Specification was objected to because of alleged informalities. However, the Examiner notes that the specification not actually objected to. Rather, it was noted that the Specification included a trade name or a mark used in commerce.
Applicant argues on Pgs. 11-13 of their Remarks that the prior art of record does not teach a cascade of reactors with filter candles disposed between each of the reactors, as Ohorodnik, which teaches filter candles, has the filter candles within the reactor, and there is no teaching or suggestion within Ohorodnik to provide a cascade of reactors with filter candles disposed between each of the reactors. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the primary reference Norrant teaches a cascade of reactors with filters disposed between each of the reactors, and Ohorodnik is relied upon to teach that filter candles are used for a similar purpose as in the filters of Norrant, i.e. retaining catalyst within a reactor. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to replace the filters of Norrant, which are between reactors in a cascade of reactors, with the filter candles of Ohorodnik. For a more detailed explanation, please see the rejection of Claim 1 in the Claim Rejections-35 USC 103 section of the instant Office action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John McGuirk whose telephone number is (571)272-1949. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-530pm.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/JOHN MCGUIRK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
