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 Interpretation
In claim 1, line 11, the term “various” is interpreted to mean “more than one”, or “plural”.
The “cover means” recited in claim 7 is interpreted to be a different element than the “at least one cover” recited in claim 1, line 12.
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.
The following are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
Claims 7-8: “cover means”
Claim 12: “alignment means”
Claims 14-15: “cover means”
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 5-6, “the periphery of the support body” should be --a periphery of the support body-- because the element has not been previously recited
In line 6, “said intermediate walls and cross walls” should be --said at least one intermediate wall and said at least one cross wall-- to be consistent in antecedent with line 5.
In line 10, “the bottom” should be --a bottom-- because the element has not been previously recited.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, “the intermediate wall” should be --the at least one intermediate wall--, and “cross walls” should be --the at least one cross wall-- to be consistent in antecedent with claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 5 recites “the periphery of the support block”, which should be --a periphery of the support block-- because the element has not been previously recited. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 recites “iron gray”, which appears it should be --gray iron--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3 recites “the periphery”, which should be --a periphery-- because the element has not been previously recited.
In lines 3-4, “said intermediate walls and cross walls” should be --said at least one intermediate wall and said at least one cross wall” to be consistent in antecedent with claim 19, lines 2-3.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 8, “each one of the first hollow section” should be --each one of the first hollow sections--. 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 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 limitation "the entire length of the wall front" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Firstly, it appears “wall front” should be --front wall--, and secondly, a particular length of the front wall has not been previously defined. For example, a length could be defined along different directions of the wall. Examiner recommends --an entire length of the front wall--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the entire length of the rear wall" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A particular length of the rear wall has not been previously defined. For example, a length could be defined along different directions of the wall. Examiner recommends --an entire length of the rear wall--.
Claim 1 recites “at least one cover to cover an upper part and a lower part of each first hollow section and each second hollow section”. It is unclear how many covers are required because it is unclear what “at least one cover” is modifying. It is unclear if this encompasses a single cover that covers an upper part and a lower part of each first hollow section and each second hollow section, or if it means at least one cover to cover an upper part and at least one cover to cover a lower part of each first hollow section and each second hollow section.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said upper cover section" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as --said at least one cover to cover an upper part of each first hollow section and each second hollow section--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the mechanisms of the parison forming or final blowing stations" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Line 11 recites “various mechanisms”, but these specific mechanisms have not been previously recited.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the casting material" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “similar material” in claims 3, 8, and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what is intended to be covered by “similar”. See MPEP 2173.05(b).
Claims 5-13 each recite “The method for constructing a support block with individual hollow sections, in a single piece, for a machine for forming glass articles”. The preamble of claim 1 does not recite “in a single piece”. It is unclear what influence this change in preamble has on the scope of claims 5-13, as no additional positive steps relating to “in a single piece” are recited in the claims.
Claim 5 recites “one behind the other” in line 4. It is unclear if this means that each first hollow section is behind another first hollow section and each second hollow section is behind another second hollow section, or if it means each first hollow section is behind a second hollow section, or something else.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the side" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Walls have more than one side, and a particular side has not been previously defined. Examiner recommends --a side--.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the mechanisms of each section forming articles”. Claim 1 recites “various mechanisms” in line 11 and “the mechanisms of the parison forming or final blowing stations” in line 15, but it is unclear if “the mechanisms” of claim 7 because “section forming articles” have not been previously recited.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the upper cover" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as --said at least one cover to cover an upper part of each first hollow section and each second hollow section--.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the independent and individual plenum chambers" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 only recites “individual plenum chambers” in lines 13-14, with no reference to “independent”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the entire length of the front wall" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A particular length of the front wall has not been previously defined. For example, a length could be defined along different directions of the wall. Examiner recommends --an entire length of the front wall--.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the entire length of the rear wall" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A particular length of the rear wall has not been previously defined. For example, a length could be defined along different directions of the wall. Examiner recommends --an entire length of the rear wall--.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the mechanisms of each article-forming section" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No mechanisms or article-forming sections have been previously recited.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the construction" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites “at least one cover to cover an upper part and a lower part of each first hollow section and each second hollow section”. It is unclear how many covers are required because it is unclear what “at least one cover” is modifying. It is unclear if this encompasses a single cover that covers an upper part and a lower part of each first hollow section and each second hollow section, or if it means at least one cover to cover an upper part and at least one cover to cover a lower part of each first hollow section and each second hollow section.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "said upper cover section" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as --said at least one cover to cover an upper part of each first hollow section and each second hollow section--.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the mechanisms of the parison forming or final blowing stations" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 recites “mechanisms of each article-forming section”, but these specific mechanisms have not been previously recited.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the upper cover" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as --said at least one cover to cover an upper part of each first hollow section and each second hollow section--.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the independent and individual plenum chambers" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 17 only recites “individual plenum chambers” in line 4, with no reference to “independent”.
Claim 20 recites “each front wall and rear wall”. This is unclear because it appears to imply that there are plural front walls and plural rear walls, but claim 14 only recites a single front wall and a single rear wall. For purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as --the front wall and the rear wall each--.
Claim 20 recites “the one or more mechanisms” in line 9. However, claim 14 recites “the mechanisms of each article-forming section” in line 14, which appears to require more than one mechanism”. It is unclear how many mechanisms are required, and/or if claim 20 is referring to the same mechanisms as recited in claim 14 or not.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 9-12, 14, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roberts ‘732 (US 5,833,732).
Regarding claim 1, Roberts ‘732 teaches:
constructing a support block comprising integrally constructing (Figs. 13, 14; wherein a constructing step is implicit in the creation of the disclosed structure):
a support body (two-section bed 130, Figs. 13, 14) including a base section (lower portion of bed 130, Figs. 13, 14), a front wall (side 132), a rear wall (other side 132, unnumbered), and side walls (walls between sides 132 with openings 153 therein) forming a hollow interior space therebetween (open space through which ducts 138 are inserted)
at least one intermediate wall (portions of top wall 134 running between the side walls and parallel to sides 132, and between adjacent wiring ports 145, Figs. 13, 14), and at least one cross wall (portions of top wall 134 running transverse to the at least one intermediate wall, including a wall adjacent to each side wall and a wall on each side of the row of wiring ports 145) located within a periphery of the support body, said at least one intermediate wall and said at least one cross wall being located in a grid relationship (Figs. 13, 14), forming a first plurality of integrated hollow sections aligned along an entire length of the front wall and, a second plurality of hollow sections aligned along an entire length of the rear wall (hollow sections defined by openings 140, 142 within beds 130)
a support section for each first hollow section and each second hollow section, said support section being connected near a bottom of each of the walls that form each first and second hollow section, to support various mechanisms of a machine for forming glass articles (portions of bed 130 below ducts 138)
providing at least one cover to cover an upper part and a lower part of each first hollow section and each second hollow section, for the configuration of individual plenum chambers or for the integration of an air supply duct (upper portion and lower portion of ducts 138, Figs. 13, 14; column 9, lines 14-17), said at least one cover to cover an upper part of each first hollow section and each second hollow section supporting each of mechanisms of parison forming or final blowing stations of the glass articles (Figs. 13, 14; column 9, lines 14-19, 24-27).
Regarding claim 5, Roberts ‘732 further teaches each first hollow section and each second hollow section are aligned and placed in a relationship one behind the other (hollow sections defined by openings 140, 142 within beds 130, Figs. 13, 14).
Regarding claim 6, Roberts ‘732 further teaches forming tubular cavities located in a vertical position for each one of the cross walls, for the introduction of lubrication conduits or cables, said tubular cavities being formed between each one of the cross walls and parallel with each of the cross walls that are located within a periphery of the support block (wiring ports 145, Figs. 13, 14).
Regarding claim 7, Roberts ‘732 further teaches:
forming an open hole or window in the front wall and rear wall in registration with each first hollow section and second hollow section of the support body (openings 136)
providing cover means for each of the open hole or window of each first hollow section and second hollow section, which engage and disengage on a side of each front wall and rear wall, to open or close the first hollow sections and second hollow sections for repair or maintenance of mechanisms of each section forming articles (ducts 138, Figs. 13, 14; column 9, lines 9-19, 24-27).
Regarding claim 9, Roberts ‘732 further teaches placing the at least one intermediate wall in a central part of the support body and in a parallel position with respect to the front wall and the rear wall (portions of top wall 134 running between the side walls and parallel to sides 132, and between adjacent wiring ports 145, Figs. 13, 14).
Regarding claim 10, Roberts ‘732 further teaches the at least one cross wall comprises a plurality of cross walls (portions of top wall 134 running transverse to the at least one intermediate wall, including a wall adjacent to each side wall and a wall on each side of the row of wiring ports 145).
Regarding claim 11, Roberts ‘732 further teaches the at least one intermediate wall is free from tubular cavities located therein (Figs. 13, 14 - the wiring ports 145 are located adjacent to the at least one intermediate wall, and not in the at least one intermediate wall, and the at least one intermediate wall does not have any additional tubular cavities therein).
Regarding claim 12, Roberts ‘732 further teaches providing alignment means in a lower part of the support body, and aligning the support block with respect to a defined installation zone (toggle operating screw 149, Fig. 14; column 9, lines 30-32).
Regarding claim 14, Roberts ‘732 teaches:
constructing a support block comprising integrally constructing (Figs. 13, 14; wherein a constructing step is implicit in the creation of the disclosed structure) a support body (two-section bed 130, Figs. 13, 14) including a base section (lower portion of bed 130, Figs. 13, 14), a front wall (side 132), a rear wall (other side 132, unnumbered), and side walls (walls between sides 132 with openings 153 therein) forming a hollow interior space therebetween (open space through which ducts 138 are inserted)
forming a first plurality of integrated hollow sections aligned along an entire length of the front wall and, a second plurality of hollow sections aligned along an entire length of the rear wall (hollow sections defined by openings 140, 142 within beds 130)
forming an open hole or window in the front wall and rear wall in registration with each first hollow section and second hollow section of the support block (openings 136)
providing cover means for each of the open holes or windows of each first hollow section and second hollow section, which are coupled and uncoupled on a side of each front wall and rear wall, for opening or closing the first hollow sections and second hollow sections for repair or maintenance of mechanisms of each article forming section (ducts 138, Figs. 13, 14; column 9, lines 9-19, 24-27).
Regarding claim 17, Roberts ‘732 further teaches providing at least one cover to cover an upper part and a lower part of each first hollow section and each second hollow section, for the configuration of individual plenum chambers or for the integration of an air supply duct (upper portion and lower portion of ducts 138, Figs. 13, 14; column 9, lines 14-17), said at least one cover to cover an upper part of each first hollow section and each second hollow section supporting each of mechanisms of parison forming or final blowing stations of the glass articles (Figs. 13, 14; column 9, lines 14-19, 24-27).
Regarding claim 19, Roberts ‘732 further teaches providing at least one intermediate wall (portions of top wall 134 running between the side walls and parallel to sides 132, and between adjacent wiring ports 145, Figs. 13, 14), and at least one cross wall (portions of top wall 134 running transverse to the at least one intermediate wall, including a wall adjacent to each side wall and a wall on each side of the row of wiring ports 145) located within a periphery of the support body, said at least one intermediate wall and said at least one cross wall being located in a grid relationship (Figs. 13, 14) to create the first plurality of hollow sections and the second plurality of hollow sections (hollow sections defined by openings 140, 142 within beds 130).
Regarding claim 20, Roberts ‘732 further teaches the front wall and the rear wall each include an open side hole in registration with each first hollow section and second hollow section (openings 136), and providing individual cover caps for covering a respective each one of the open side holes of each of the first hollow sections and each of the second hollow sections, the individual cover caps being coupled and uncoupled at a side of either the front wall or rear wall, the individual cover caps configured to separately open or close the respective each one of open side holes of each one of the first hollow sections and each one of the second hollow sections for repair or maintenance of one or more mechanisms, the one or more mechanisms being associated with a respective article forming section (ducts 138, Figs. 13, 14; column 9, lines 9-19, 24-27).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 8, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts ‘732 (US 5,833,732) in view of Smith ‘934 (US 3,370,934).
Regarding claims 2-3, Roberts ‘732 is silent regarding the construction of the support body being carried out by casting, and regarding a casting material being nodular or ductile iron, gray iron, or similar material. In analogous art of glass processing equipment, Smith ‘934 suggests casting with nodular or ductile iron, gray iron, or similar material is well known in the art for manufacturing components of glass forming machines because of the ease of machinability, ease of casting, low cost, and resistance to oxidation at elevated temperatures (column 1, lines 27-30; column 1, line 68-column 2, line 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Roberts ‘732 by carrying out construction of the support body by casting, and with a casting material that is nodular or ductile iron, gray iron, or similar material, as a known manner and known materials for manufacturing components of glass forming machines, as suggested by Smith ‘934.
Regarding claim 8, Roberts ‘732 is silent regarding the cover means being made of ductile or nodular iron, gray iron, or similar. Smith ‘934 suggests that ductile or nodular iron, gray iron, or similar material is well known in the art for manufacturing components of glass forming machines because of the ease of machinability, ease of casting, low cost, and resistance to oxidation at elevated temperatures (column 1, lines 27-30; column 1, line 68-column 2, line 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Roberts ‘732 by making the cover means of ductile or nodular iron, gray iron, or similar material, as a known manner and known materials for manufacturing components of glass forming machines, as suggested by Smith ‘934.
Regarding claim 15, Roberts ‘732 is silent regarding construction of the cover means being carried out by casting with a material comprising nodular or ductile iron, gray iron, or similar material. In analogous art of glass processing equipment, Smith ‘934 suggests casting with nodular or ductile iron, gray iron, or similar material is well known in the art for manufacturing components of glass forming machines because of the ease of machinability, ease of casting, low cost, and resistance to oxidation at elevated temperatures (column 1, lines 27-30; column 1, line 68-column 2, line 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Roberts ‘732 by carrying out construction of the cover means by casting with a material comprising nodular or ductile iron, gray iron, or similar material, as a known manner and known materials for manufacturing components of glass forming machines, as suggested by Smith ‘934.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts ‘732 (US 5,833,732) and Smith ‘934 (US 3,370,934) in view of Kinsley ‘492 (US 3,329,492).
Regarding claim 4, Roberts ‘732 teaches the front wall, the rear wall, the side walls, the at least one intermediate wall, and the at least one cross wall as described above, but is silent regarding these components being welded single piece steel plates. In analogous art of glass processing equipment, Kinsley ’492 suggests forming walls of a glass processing apparatus as welded single piece steel plates (column 3, lines 16-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Roberts ‘732 by making the walls welded single piece steel plates, as suggested by Kinsley ‘492, as a known material and joining method for walls of a glass processing apparatus.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts ‘732 (US 5,833,732).
Regarding claim 16, Roberts ‘732 illustrates the support block as a single unit (two-section bed 130, Figs. 13, 14), but does not explicitly state that the support block is a single piece of material. However, it has been held that making in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in multiple pieces involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Roberts ‘732 by making the support block a single piece of material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 18 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: Roberts ‘732 is the closest prior art. The primary reason for allowability is that Roberts ‘732, and the prior art as a whole, does not teach or suggest providing one or more perforations in an upper cover section (a cover covering an upper part of each first hollow section and each second hollow section) of each of the individual plenum chambers, in combination with all of the other claimed structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin Snelting whose telephone number is (571)272-7169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00 to 5:00.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at (571) 270-7001. 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.
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741