DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 9/2/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 4 and 8 have been amended. Claim 20 has been cancelled. Claims 23-24 are new. Claims 1-19 and 21-24 are pending with claims 17-19 and 21 withdrawn from further consideration.
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 and Arguments
The Applicant’s amendments have overcome the claim objections and the § 112(b) rejections set forth in the office action as set forth on 4/6/2026. Therefore, the claim objections and the § 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that STIGSSON fails to teach or suggest any maintaining of sodium hydroxide content by withdrawing a portion of the alkaline spin bath, let alone maintaining the sodium hydroxide content at the clamed level. STIGSSON therefore fails to each or suggest the step of “withdrawing a portion of the alkaline spin bath,” as it appears that STIGSSON’s entire spent coagulation liquid is directed to the separation unit for recycling.
The Examiner agrees that STIGGSON teaches the entire spent coagulation liquid in STIGSSON is directed to the separation unit for recycling; however, as the transitional phrase of the claim 1 is “comprising”, a portion of the bath may include the entire spent coagulation liquid, therefore meeting the claimed limitations.
The Applicant argues that there would be no motivation to combine ZHOU and STIGGSON due to the fundamental differences in maintaining of sodium hydroxide levels between the claimed invention and STIGSSON.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify ZHOU, by spinning the cellulose carbamate dope into an alkaline aqueous bath unit with the sodium hydroxide in the range of 2-6 wt% and the sodium carbonate in the range of 20-30 wt%, as suggested by STIGSSON, in order to increase structural integrity of the fibers [Col. 3, lines 32-35].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 9-16 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHOU et al. (CN 102691125A, original and translation provided), hereinafter ZHOU, in view of Stigsson et al. (U.S. 10,138,578), hereinafter STIGSSON.
Regarding claim 1, ZHOU teaches: A method for the manufacture of cellulose carbamate textile fibre (ZHOU teaches a method for manufacturing cellulose carbamate textile fibre [Abstract; pg. 1].), comprising the steps of;- dissolving cellulose carbamate having a maximum nitrogen content, as measured according to SFS 5505:1988, of 2.5 wt-% in an aqueous sodium hydroxide medium to form a cellulose carbamate dope (ZHOU teaches the nitrogen content of the cellulose carbamate is 2-3% [pg. 3]. ZHOU also teaches the nitrogen content of the cellulose carbamate in Example 3 is 1.785% [pg. 4]. Although ZHOU is silent regarding the measurement method, the nitrogen content of 1.785% is prima facie expected to meet the claimed nitrogen content absent evidence or rational to suggest otherwise. ZHOU teaches the cellulose carbamate is in an aqueous sodium hydroxide medium to form a cellulose carbamate dope [Example 3; pg. 4].), wherein the dope comprises zinc (ZHOU teaches the dope comprise zinc [Example 3; pg. 4].); . . . .
ZHOU is silent as to: spinning the cellulose carbamate dope into an alkaline aqueous spin bath in a spinning unit, to form filaments or filament tow, wherein a temperature of the alkaline aqueous spin bath is in the range of 35-60 0C; and - stretching the filaments or filament tow to obtain cellulose carbamate fibres; wherein a sodium hydroxide content of the spin bath is maintained within a range of 1.0-1.99 wt- % and a sodium carbonate content of the spin bath is maintained at a content of at most 30 wt-%, by withdrawing a portion of the alkaline spin bath from the spinning unit for recycling. In the same field of endeavor, spinning, STIGSSON teaches spinning a cellulose carbamate dope into an alkaline aqueous spin bath in a spinning unit to form filaments or filament tow [Col. 1, lines 50-56; Col. 2, lines 1-21; claim 4]. STIGSSON teaches the temperature of the alkaline aqueous spin bath is in the range of 20 to 40°C [Col. 3, lines 22-23]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. STIGSSON teaches stretching the filaments to obtain cellulose carbamate fibers [Col. 3, lines 10-13]. STIGSSON teaches the sodium hydroxide content of the spin bath is in the range of 2 to 12% (by weight), preferably 2 to 6 wt % [Col. 3, lines 27-28], which is close enough. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the sodium hydroxide content be 2 since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, and one would have been motivated to have it at 2 to have a convenient process [STIGSSON; Col. 3, line 3]. See Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties). STIGSSON teaches a sodium carbonate concentration is in the range of 15 to 45% (by weight), preferably 20 to 30 wt % [Col. 3, lines 29-31]. STIGSSON teaches a portion of the alkaline spin bath from the spinning unit is for recycling [claim 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify ZHOU, by spinning the cellulose carbamate dope into an alkaline aqueous bath unit with the sodium hydroxide in the range of 2-6 wt% and the sodium carbonate in the range of 20-30 wt%, as suggested by STIGSSON, in order to increase structural integrity of the fibers [Col. 3, lines 32-35].
Regarding claim 4, ZHOU teaches: wherein the nitrogen content of the cellulose carbamate is 0.5-2.0 wt-% (ZHOU teaches the nitrogen content of the cellulose carbamate is 2-3% [pg. 3].).
Regarding claim 9, STIGSSON further teaches: wherein the sodium hydroxide content of the spin bath is maintained within a range of 1.5-1.9 wt-% (STIGSSON teaches the sodium hydroxide content of the spin bath is in the range of 2 to 12% (by weight), preferably 2 to 6 wt % [Col. 3, lines 27-28], which 2 wt %, is close enough. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the sodium hydroxide content be 2 since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, and one would have been motivated to have it at 2 wt % to have a convenient process [STIGSSON; Col. 3, line 3]. See Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties).).
Regarding claim 10, STIGSSON further teaches: wherein the alkaline spin bath comprises sodium hydroxide and sodium carbonate at a weight ratio of 1:11-1:20 (STIGSSON teaches the lowest weight percentage is 2 wt % for sodium hydroxide and the highest weight percentage for sodium carbonate is preferably 30 wt % [Col. 3, lines 27-31], which gives a ratio of 2:30 that turns to 1:15 and meets the claimed range. Therefore, STIGSSON teaches overlapping claimed ratios. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.).
Regarding claim 11, STIGSSON further teaches: wherein the sodium carbonate content of the spin bath is maintained within a range of 22-30 wt-% (STIGSSON teaches a sodium carbonate concentration is in the range of 15 to 45% (by weight), preferably 20 to 30 wt % [Col. 3, lines 29-31].).
Regarding claim 12, STIGSSON further teaches: wherein the temperature of the alkaline spin bath is in the range of 40-55°C (STIGSSON teaches the temperature of the alkaline aqueous spin bath is in the range of 20 to 40°C [Col. 3, lines 22-23]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.).
Regarding claim 13, STIGSSON further teaches: wherein the spinning has a spinneret draw ratio in the range of 0.75-1.4 (STIGSSON teaches the draw ratio may be in the range of 0.1-2 [Col. 4, lines 37-39]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify ZHOU, by having a draw ratio of 0.1-2, as suggested by STIGSSON, in order to avoid lump formation on the spinneret surface [Col. 4, lines 40-42].
Regarding claim 14, STIGSSON further teaches: wherein the total stretching after coagulation of the filament or filament tow is at least 70 % by length in a stretching unit (STIGSSON teaches the stretch is at least 75% by length in a stretching unit [Col. 3, lines 10-14].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify ZHOU, by stretching the fibers at least 75% by length, as suggested by STIGSSON, in order to improve mechanical properties [Col. 3, lines 10-11].
Regarding claim 15, ZHOU teaches: further comprising at least one post-treatment step selected from an acid treatment to remove zinc oxide residues from the filaments and a post-hydrolysis treatment to reduce the nitrogen content of the filaments to a range of 0.05-0.4 wt-% (ZHOU teaches after the formed tow is pulled out by coagulation rollers, the tow enters a second coagulation bath, which can be a sodium hydroxide solution [Example 6; pg. 5]. ZHOU teaches the fibers can go through several post treatments [Examples 14-18; pgs. 8-9]. ZHOU teaches the zinc content is zero and the nitrogen content of the filament is 0.3% [Example 14; pgs. 2, 8].).
Regarding claim 16, ZHOU teaches: wherein the nitrogen content of the cellulose carbamate filament after coagulation is in the range of 0.40-1.0 wt-% (ZHOU teaches the residual content of nitrogen is relatively low, 0.3% [pg. 2], which is close enough to 0.4. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the content be 0.3 since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, and one would have been motivated to have it at 0.3 to be safe and comfortable [ZHOU: pg. 2]. See Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties).).
Regarding claim 23, STIGSSON further teaches: wherein the sodium hydroxide and the sodium carbonate are directed from the spinning unit directly into a separation unit or separation units (STIGSSON teaches the sodium hydroxide and the sodium carbonate is direction from the spinning unit direction into a separation unit (8) [Fig. 1; Col. 5, lines 5-11].), and wherein the sodium hydroxide and the sodium carbonate are directed from the separation unit or separation units directly to the spinning unit (STIGSSON teaches the sodium hydroxide and the sodium carbonate can be directed to the spinning unit from the separation bath [Fig. 1; Col. 3, lines 43-47].), to maintain the sodium hydroxide content within the range of 1.0-1.99 wt-% and the sodium carbonate at the content of at most 30 wt-% (STIGSSON teaches the sodium hydroxide content of the spin bath is in the range of 2 to 12% (by weight), preferably 2 to 6 wt % [Col. 3, lines 27-28], which is close enough. STIGSSON teaches a sodium carbonate concentration is in the range of 15 to 45% (by weight), preferably 20 to 30 wt % [Col. 3, lines 29-31]. STIGSSON teaches a portion of the alkaline spin bath from the spinning unit is for recycling [claim 1].).
Regarding claim 24, STIGGSON further teaches: wherein the sodium hydroxide and the sodium carbonate are withdrawn from a stretching unit to the separation unit or separation units (STIGGSON teaches the fibers are stretched in the coagulation bath (7) and the sodium hydroxide and the sodium carbonate are withdrawn to a separation unit (8) [Fig. 1; Col. 2, lines 48-64; Col. 5, lines 8-11].).
Claim(s) 2-3, 6-7 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHOU et al. (CN 102691125A), hereinafter ZHOU, and Stigsson et al. (U.S. 10,138,578), hereinafter STIGSSON, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Määttänen et al. (“Pre-treatments of pre-consumer cotton-based textile waste for production of textile fibres in the cold NaOH(aq) and cellulose carbamate processes”, provided in the IDS of 3/30/2026), hereinafter MÄÄTTÄNEN.
Regarding claim 2, ZHOU and STIGSSON teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the cellulose carbamate comprises cellulose carbamate obtained from cellulose containing waste material, the waste material being selected from the group consisting of textile waste, paper waste, cardboard waste, agro waste, and mixtures thereof. In the same field of endeavor, cellulose carbamate, MÄÄTTÄNEN teaches the raw materials used were pre-consumer cotton-based textile waste [pg. 3871]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify ZHOU and STIGSSON, by having the cellulose carbamate comprise cellulose carbamate obtained from cellulose containing waste material selected from textile waste, as suggested by MÄÄTTÄNEN, in order to develop and improve textile recycling process and open the possibility to use recycled cotton waste textiles as raw materials for man-made cellulosic fibres [pg. 3870].
Regarding claim 3, ZHOU and STIGSSON teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the cellulose carbamate comprises cellulose carbamate obtained from textile waste, in an amount of at least 50 wt-% of the cellulose carbamate. In the same field of endeavor, cellulose carbamate, MÄÄTTÄNEN teaches the cellulose carbamate obtained from textile waste in an amount of dry content of 91-94% [pg. 3871; see also Table 3 on pg. 3875]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify ZHOU and STIGSSON, by having the cellulose carbamate comprise cellulose carbamate obtained from cellulose containing waste material selected from textile waste, as suggested by MÄÄTTÄNEN, in order to develop and improve textile recycling process and open the possibility to use recycled cotton waste textiles as raw materials for man-made cellulosic fibres [pg. 3870], and homogenise the structure [pg. 3871].
Regarding claim 6, ZHOU and STIGSSON teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the cellulose carbamate is prepared by pre-treating cellulose-based material, and preforming cellulose carbamation on the pre-treated cellulose-based material. In the same field of endeavor, cellulose carbamate, MÄÄTTÄNEN teaches the cellulose carbamate is pre-treated and performing the cellulose carbamation on the pre-treated cellulose-based material [pgs. 3871-3873]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify ZHOU and STIGSSON, by having the cellulose carbamate pre-treated and performing the cellulose carbamation on the pre-treated cellulose-based material, as suggested by MÄÄTTÄNEN, in order to remove the dye and decrease the inorganic content as well as reduce the degree of polymerisation but only sufficiently enough for produce of fibres in the cellulose carbamate process [Abstract].
Regarding claim 7, MÄÄTTÄNEN further teaches: wherein the pre-treatment comprises a mechanical treatment to obtain a predetermined particle size of the cellulose-based material (MÄÄTTÄNEN teaches the raw materials are shredded with a hammer mill [pg. 3871].), followed by an acidic treatment and an alkaline treatment in a cooking liquor (MÄÄTTÄNEN teaches an alkaline washing and acid washing [pg. 3871].), and optionally a bleaching and/or decolourisation treatment (MÄÄTTÄNEN teaches the raw material goes through a bleaching treatment [Abstract].).
Regarding claim 22, ZHOU and STIGSSON teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the cellulose carbamate comprises at least 25 wt-% of the cellulose carbamate obtained from cellulose-containing waste material. In the same field of endeavor, cellulose carbamate, MÄÄTTÄNEN teaches the cellulose carbamate obtained from textile waste in an amount of dry content of 91-94% [pg. 3871; see also Table 3 on pg. 3875]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify ZHOU and STIGSSON, by having the cellulose carbamate comprise cellulose carbamate obtained from cellulose containing waste material selected from textile waste, as suggested by MÄÄTTÄNEN, in order to develop and improve textile recycling process and open the possibility to use recycled cotton waste textiles as raw materials for man-made cellulosic fibres [pg. 3870], and homogenise the structure [pg. 3871].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHOU et al. (CN 102691125A), hereinafter ZHOU, and Stigsson et al. (U.S. 10,138,578), hereinafter STIGSSON, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Määttänen et al. (“Pre-treatments of pre-consumer cotton-based textile waste for production of textile fibres in the cold NaOH(aq) and cellulose carbamate processes”, provided in the IDS of 3/30/2026), hereinafter MÄÄTTÄNEN, and HEDLUND et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0062950), hereinafter HEDLUND.
Regarding claim 5, ZHOU and STIGSSON teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the cellulose carbamate has a polydispersity in the range of 2.0 to 5.0, as measured by Gel Permeation Chromatography/Size Exclusion Chromatography instrument, and an average intrinsic viscosity of 147 to 225 ml/g, as measured by CED viscosity measurement according to ISO 5351:2010. In the same field of endeavor, cellulose carbamate, MÄÄTTÄNEN teaches the cellulose carbamate has a polydispersity in the range of 2.9-3.9 [Table 5; pg. 3876]. MÄÄTTÄNEN teaches the raw materials and pre-treated materials were determined by size exclusion chromatography (SEC) and the viscosity was characterized by ISO 5351:2010 [pg. 3873]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify ZHOU and STIGSSON, by having a polydispersity in the range of 2.9-3.9, as suggested by MÄÄTTÄNEN, in order to have even degradation due to pre-treatments [pg. 3875].
ZHOU, STIGSSON and MÄÄTTÄNEN are silent as to: an average intrinsic viscosity of 147 to 225 ml/g. In the same field of endeavor, cellulose carbamate, HEDLUND teaches intrinsic viscosity to be in the range of 140-230 ml/g [0053], which encompasses the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify ZHOU, STIGSSON and MÄÄTTÄNEN, by having an intrinsic viscosity in the range of 140-230 ml/g, as suggested by HEDLUND, in order to measure molecular-weight distribution and have a low degree of polymerization to more easily dissolve [0053].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHOU et al. (CN 102691125A), hereinafter ZHOU, and Stigsson et al. (U.S. 10,138,578), hereinafter STIGSSON, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of HEDLUND et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0062950), hereinafter HEDLUND.
Regarding claim 8, ZHOU and STIGSSON teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, including: wherein the cellulose carbamate dope comprises 8-11 wt% of cellulose carbamate (ZHOU teaches a 5.0-8.0 wt-% cellulose carbamate solution [pg. 3], which overlaps with the claimed range.), 5-8 wt-% of sodium hydroxide and 0.08-1.2 wt-% of zinc (ZHOU teaches the dope has 7-8 wt-% of sodium hydroxide and 1.2-1.8 wt-% of zinc oxide [pg. 2, which overlaps with the claimed range]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.), but are silent as to: the dope has a viscosity of 15 Pas or less (measured at 20 degrees Celsius), as measured by ASTM D1343-93:2019. In the same field of endeavor, cellulose carbamate, HEDLUND teaches the dope has a shear viscosity of 1 to 500 Pas, preferably 5 to 100 Pas [0018; 0054], which overlaps with the claimed range. Although HEDLUND is silent regarding the measurement method, the viscosity of the range of 5 to 100 Pas is prima facie expected to meet the claimed viscosity range absent evidence or rational to suggest otherwise. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify ZHOU and STIGSSON, by having shear viscosity in the range of 5-100 Pas, as suggested by HEDLUND, in order to measure molecular-weight distribution and have a low degree of polymerization to more easily dissolve [0053].
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 CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights