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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 7/29/25 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 9 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the (Specification, Drawings, and Claims) have not overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 5/8/25.
Drawings
The amendment filed 7/29/25 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure, specifically the drawings. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
New Fig. 9 is considered new matter; at the least, 1) it is a completely new figure not in the original disclosure such as in the brief description of drawings, and 2) it shows dimensions relative to one another that is unsupported by the original disclosure; although Fig. 7 may suggest some dimensions between elements 4 and 5, the disclosure of Fig. 7 does not amount to enough support to present Fig. 9; as such, Fig. 9 should be canceled
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The drawings are further objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
As aforementioned in the previous office action:
Claim 1 Line 3 “cradle” is not labeled in the drawings
Fig. 8 (directed to Claim 9) does not show structures of Claim 1 (ventilation notches, cradle) that are claimed in Claim 9
Similarly as aforementioned—Claim 1 Line 18 and [0042] “formed net layer 4 has a width which is half of the width of the second cloth layer 5”; review is needed whether “width” is indicating “thickness” in Fig. 7; see also [0045]
It is unclear how the Figures show Claim 1 Lines 1, 4-5 “A cup comprising…a plurality of ventilation notches” when element 6 represents only a single ventilation notch (see for example [0046]), and there are no indications in the Figures as to a plurality of 6 being illustrated; it is unclear if the issue is in the drawings (how 6 is illustrated) or the specification (how 6 is disclosed); no new matter can be introduced into the drawings (such as now illustrating 6 with additional locations or dimensions)
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because the following different reference character(s) have been used to designate same elements:
Fig. 8 has “support part 9” seemingly directed to the same structure as element 12 in Fig. 1
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference sign(s) not mentioned in the description:
Fig. 1 elements 10-12
Fig. 7 elements 1a and 2a
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
As aforementioned:
[0008] should read “to move upwards, and the ventilation notches are deformed”
Especially in light of the drawing objections, such as the cradle and ventilation notches in Fig. 8 pertaining to Claim 9, [0044] directed to Claim 9 and pertaining to support part 9 is unclear; how can support part 9 be “between the first sponge layer (2) and the first cloth layer (1)”?
[0046] needs review as it seems to missing multiple drawing reference numerals
It is unclear why “9 support part” has been removed when 1) [0044] still recites “support part 9”, and 2) element 9 is still in Fig. 8
As aforementioned in the drawing objections, multiple additional reference numerals 1a, 2a, 10-12 have been added to the Figures and are not listed in [0046]
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 9 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 Line 3 delete “bow” and substitute –bowl—
Claim 9 Line 1 delete “press-molding” and substitute –press-molded— since this term is directed to a process disclosed in [0045]
Disagreement with any of the aforementioned may warrant at least a 112(b) indefiniteness rejection without constituting a new rejection
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8, 9 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
The term “formed net layer has a width which is half of a width of the second cloth layer” in Claim 1 Line 18 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the term is directed to “thickness” or some other dimension, especially in light of the drawing objection. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted as the dimensions currently labeled 1a, 2a in Fig. 7 but are without any corresponding disclosure.
The term “cup unit comprising…two cups” in Claim 9 Lines 1-2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how a single “cup unit” comprises “two cups”. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, Claim 9 will be interpreted “A press-molded unit comprising…two cups.”
Dependent claims are rejected at the least for depending on rejected claims.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claim(s) 9-- the recitations are being treated as a product-by-process limitation. It is noted that the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art; more specifically, the structure of Claim(s) 9 is a unit comprising a connection portion and two cups, wherein each of the two cups is configured as the cup according to claim 1, wherein the two cups are symmetrically arranged and are integrally formed with the connection portion”.
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.
FIRST REJECTION: Claim(s) 1, 3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (USPN 7458877) in view of Liu (USPN 12070085), Caden (USPN 10786016), and Campbell (USPN 9332789).
Regarding Claim 1, Yu teaches a cup (see Figs. 1, 2 for each side of Col. 2 Lines 56-57 “bra 4”, especially as it has Col. 2 Line 30 "cups 2"), comprising
a cup body (see Figs. 1, 2 for each side of Col. 2 Lines 56-57 “bra 4”),
wherein the cup body is divided into an upper section that is of a bowl shape and a lower section that is of a bowl shape integrally formed with the upper bowl (see Fig. 1 clearly showing cup curvature and therefore a bowl shape; see Figs. 1, 2 for upper/lower sections for each cup’s cup body; wherein the upper/lower sections are integrally formed inasmuch as the sections are of a same invention; nevertheless, see Col. 2 Lines 51-53 "the dual-cup outer layer part 1, the pair of dual-layer foam cups 2, and the inner layer part 3 are positioned in a mold and joined together by means of hot pressing"),
a cradle extends from the lower section (see Fig. 1, wherein the cradle is the area of the overall cup body 4 shown in Fig. 2 specifically at the location of the “bump” where wire 22 is located; wherein Fig. 2 shows it extending from lower section inasmuch as the cradle lines at least the bottom the cup body and the cup body bottom is lower section),
wherein each of the upper section, the lower section and the cradle sequentially comprises a composite layer (11 through 32) and a first cloth layer (31) from outside to inside (see Fig. 1; Col. 2 Lines 23-24 "the outer layer part 1 includes an outer elastic cloth layer 11, and a thin foam layer 12"; Col. 2 Lines 31-34 "the pair connected dual-layer foam cups 2 each includes two foam layers 21, and a U-shaped steel underwire 22 wrapped between the two foam layers 21 thereof"; Col. 2 Lines 40-41 "the inner layer part 3 includes an inner elastic cloth layer 31, and a thin foam layer 32"),
the composite layer is bonded to the first cloth layer (Col. 2 Lines 51-53 "the dual-cup outer layer part 1, the pair of dual-layer foam cups 2, and the inner layer part 3 are positioned in a mold and joined together by means of hot pressing"; for 32 to 31 directly-- Col. 2 Lines 41-44 "thin foam layer 32, which is positioned over a front side of the inner elastic cloth layer 31, and joined to the inner elastic cloth layer 31 by means of carrying out hot pressing with a hot-pressing mold"),
a side of the composite layer away from the first cloth layer is in contact with an outerwear (Yu teaches the composite layer side away from the first cloth layer which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being in contact with an outerwear, especially as the composite layer has an outermost side), and
a side of the first cloth layer away from the composite layer is in contact with a breast (Yu teaches the first cloth layer side away from the composite layer which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of in contact with a breast, especially as the first cloth layer has an innermost side),
wherein the composite layer sequentially comprises a second cloth layer (11), a first foam layer (12) and a second foam layer (21) (Col. 2 Lines 23-24 "outer elastic cloth layer 11"; Col. 2 Line 24 "thin foam layer 12"; "two Col. 2 Lines 32-33 foam layers 21"; see Fig. 1 for sequentially),
the first foam layer is connected with the second cloth layer (for 12 to 21—see Fig. 1, which would be directly connected when hot pressed; Col. 2 Lines 51-53 "the dual-cup outer layer part 1, the pair of dual-layer foam cups 2, and the inner layer part 3 are positioned in a mold and joined together by means of hot pressing" wherein 12 is of outer layer part 1 and 21 is part of cups 2).
and the second foam layer is connected with the first cloth layer (21 at least eventually connects to 31, since 21 of 2 is smaller than 31, 32 of 3 in Col. 2 Lines 30-31 “cups 2, which are smaller than…part 1”; Col. 2 Lines 51-53 "the dual-cup outer layer part 1, the pair of dual-layer foam cups 2, and the inner layer part 3 are positioned in a mold and joined together by means of hot pressing"), and
wherein the composite layer further comprises a formed layer (Col. 2 Line 33 "U-shaped steel underwire 22"),
and the formed layer is provided between the first foam layer (12) and the second foam layer (21) (see Fig. 1 for 22 between being a portion of 21 and a front of 12; Col. 2 Lines 33-34 " U-shaped steel underwire 22 wrapped between the two foam layers 21 thereof").
Yu does not explicitly teach and a plurality of ventilation notches are defined at intervals at a joint of the lower bowl and the cradle.
Liu teaches a ventilation notch (15) is defined at a joint of the lower bowl and the cradle (Fig. 3 is the embodiment utilized herein; for cradle, see Fig. 3; Col. 4 Lines 43-44 "shaping strip 16 is sandwiched between the outer surface 11 and the inner surface layer 12" which maps similarly to where the bump is in Yu, especially as bump is from an underwire; wherein the notch is 15; see Figs. 1, 2; Col. 4 Lines 12-15 "at a junction of the breast supporting part 13 and the lower cling part 14, at least a part of the outer surface 11 forms a hollow window area 15, and the inner surface liner 12 covers the window area 15"; although recitations herein may be directed to a different embodiment, such as Figs. 1, 2, it is understood that Fig. 3 having the same numerals and concepts as recited for Figs. 1, 2 as applicable would also have the recitations apply to Fig. 3, especially in light of Col. 4 Lines 39-40 "As shown in Fig. 3...the brassiere cup body 10 further includes a shaping strip 16", wherein Figs. 1, 2 are brassiere cup body 10, and therefore Fig. 3 builds upon Figs. 1, 2, especially in light of the term “further includes”; Liu teaches the notch/window which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of providing ventilation).
Liu does not explicitly teach a plurality of notches,
and therefore notches defined at intervals.
However, a mere duplication of parts is seen as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because such duplication into a plurality of notches (and therefore be at intervals) would not have produced a new and unexpected result and therefore has no patentable significance. In other words, a mere duplication of parts of an element involves only routine skill in the art. In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu to have a plurality of notches (and thereby be at intervals) in order to allow movement with more variation (Col. 4 Lines 25-28 "in addition to enhancing the air permeability, the window area 15 allows the breast supporting part and the lower cling part to move relative to each other").
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu’s cup with the plurality of ventilation notches at intervals as taught by Liu in order to provide air permeability and desired movement (Col. 4 Lines 25-28).
Yu does not explicitly teach that the foam is sponge.
Caden teaches that foam is sponge (see Figs. 1A, 1B; Col. 6 Lines 27-28 "front section 14 of the body 12 is provided with a multi-layer construction 30"; Col. 6 Lines 50-51 "construction 30 comprises a second layer 38"; see Fig. 5; Col. 6 Lines 56-57 "second layer 38 is fabricated from a liquid or moisture absorbing material (e.g….an absorbent foam)"; Col. 7 Lines 41-46 "at least portions of the first and second layers 32, 38 collectively define at least open pocket 44 therebetween which is sized and configured to removably accommodate an ancillary absorption layer 46 adapted to supplement the moisture absorption properties of the second layer 38").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu’s foam to be sponge as taught by Caden as Caden shows it is known in the art to make foams an absorbent material/sponge in a cup area for effective bras (see aforementioned), such as for dealing with sweat (Col. 1 Lines 23-27).
Yu does not explicitly teach that the formed layer is a formed net layer,
and the formed net layer has a width which is half of a width of the second cloth layer.
Campbell teaches a formed net layer (see Fig. 15A; Col. 9 Lines 52-57 "inner pad 1525 is also coupled to a flexible mesh 1527 ...flexible mesh 1527 may be coupled to...an underwire portion of brassiere 1500").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu’s formed underwire layer with the net/mesh of Campbell to provide the flexibility to adjust (Col. 9 Lines 58-59) in Yu’s composite layer.
As such, modified Yu at least suggests wherein the formed net layer has a width which is half of a width of the second cloth layer (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- at least a portion of Yu’s formed net layer 1527 as provided by Campbell Figs. 15A, 15B would have a width which is half of a width of at least a portion of Yu’s second cloth layer 11, such as at the cup of 11 in Fig. 2, especially as at least a portion of 1527 already has a width which is half of a width of at least a portion of its own cup in Campbell).
Especially absent a showing of criticality with respect to the dimensions of the formed net layer relative to the second cloth layer ([0042], [0045]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu’s formed net layer to have a width which is half of a width of the second cloth layer in light of Campbell depending on the extent of flexibility desired (Campbell Col. 9 Lines 58-59).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Yu teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Yu further teaches wherein each of the plurality of ventilation notches is arch-shaped, intermittent arch-shaped, zigzag, waved or rhombic (see Liu Fig. 3; Col. 4 Line 22 "the window area 15 is a continuous arc-shaped area close to the breast supporting part 13", wherein arc is arch, and therefore the plurality would be such a shape as well).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Yu teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Yu further teaches wherein the first cloth layer (31) is an elastic cloth layer (Col. 2 Line 42 "inner elastic cloth layer 31").
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (USPN 7458877) in view of Liu (USPN 12070085), Caden (USPN 10786016), and Campbell (USPN 9332789), as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, further in view of Ben (CN 2022/06895).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Yu teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Yu does not explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of ventilation notches has a width of 4-10 mm.
Ben teaches wherein each of the plurality of ventilation notches has a width of 4-10 mm (see Fig. 1; [0007] "large-diameter ventilation holes with a diameter of 6 mm to 8 mm are set at intervals…above the cup under the breasts where sweating is most likely to occur, so as to achieve optimal breathability in this area"; [0009] "cup is provided with large-caliber ventilation holes at the cup portion under the breast shape, so that the breast is protected").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu’s notches, as provided by Liu, to be of the width recited as such ventilation dimensions are known to protect the breast in that breast area ([0009]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (USPN 7458877) in view of Liu (USPN 12070085), Caden (USPN 10786016), and Campbell (USPN 9332789), as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, further in view of Bartasis (USPN 4924525).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Yu teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Yu further teaches wherein adhesive for bonding is provided between the first cloth layer (31) and the second sponge layer (21) (see Yu Col. 2 Lines 47-51 "oil-based glue is sprinkled over opposed sides of the dual-cup outer layer part 1 and the pair of dual-layer foam cups 2 as well as opposed sides of the pair of dual-layer foam cups 2 and the inner layer part 3”).
Yu does not explicitly teach that the adhesive is a hot melt adhesive film,
and the hot melt adhesive film is one of a thermoplastic urethane (TPU) film, a polyamide (PA) film or a polyethylene vinylacetate (EVA) film.
Bartasis teaches a hot melt adhesive film (Col. 3 Lines 25-28 "The primary adhesive material can be a urethane-based adhesive, an acrylic or latex-based material, an oil-based material, or a low melting polymer such as ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA)"; for film--see Fig. 1; Col. 4 Lines 61, 64-65 "multilayer polymer film structure 10 includes...primary adhesive layer 16, for instance, of ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer material"; for hot melt-- see Fig. 4; Col. 6 Line 40 "heat sealing the segments 30 of protective material"; wherein Fig. 4 is of Fig. 3 of Fig. 1; inasmuch as EVA is taught, a hot melt adhesive is taught),
and the hot melt adhesive film is one of a Thermoplastic Urethane (TPU) film, a polyamide (PA) film or a polyethylene vinylacetate (EVA) film (see above for EVA film).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu’s oil-based glue with the hot melt adhesive EVA film of Bartasis as Bartasis discloses the two as a simple substitution of one type of adhesive for another for effective bonding.
SECOND REJECTION: Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (USPN 7458877) in view of Liu (USPN 12070085), Caden (USPN 10786016), Campbell (USPN 9332789), and Reinisch et al (USPN 8128457), herein Reinisch.
Regarding Claim 9, Yu teaches a press-molding cup unit (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--see Fig. 2 for cup unit, especially in light of Col. 2 Lines 51-53 "the dual-cup outer layer part 1, the pair of dual-layer foam cups 2, and the inner layer part 3 are positioned in a mold and joined together by means of hot pressing"), comprising
two cups (see Fig. 1),
wherein the two cups are symmetrically arranged (see Figs. 1, 2).
Yu does not explicitly teach wherein each of the two cups is configured as the cup according to claim 1.
Yu modified by Liu teaches wherein each of the two cups is configured as the cup according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1 in the FIRST REJECTION above).
Yu does not explicitly teach a connection portion,
wherein the two cups are integrally formed with the connection portion.
Reinisch teaches a connection portion (see Figs. 1-3, 8-10; Col. 9 Lines 51-55 "additional portions of bra 100 may be applied or associated with main body 102 prior to molding main body 102 to form the laminate and establish the shape of bra 100. Rib band 116 may be associated with a lower edge of main body 102", wherein band 116 connects left/right sides of bra),
wherein the two cups are integrally formed with the connection portion (see Figs. 1-3, 8-10, wherein the elements are integrally formed inasmuch as being of a same invention).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu’s cups integrally with the connection portion of Reinisch as such bands are known in the art to keep the bra in place to the body (see extrinsic evidence Nobbs USPN 3890978), especially as both references are directed to hot pressing/molding (see extrinsic evidence Wu FR 2870681 [0009] wherein these terms are related).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5, 8, 9 have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. Therefore, see aforementioned rejections for the argued missing limitations. For clarification-- in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually throughout pages 5-7 of the remarks 7/29/25, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary: Roddis et al (USPN 11684092) directed to a cradle; Sanchez (US Publication 2020/0120994), Zhang (CN 206182387), Chen (USPN 113475795), Shin et al (WO 2016/101527) directed to ventilation notches defined at intervals; Yang (CN 212014468) directed to composite layer of two fabrics and two sponges; Kang (USPN 6368179) directed to non-coextensive layers;
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Grace Huang whose telephone number is (571)270-5969. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am-5:30pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoa Huynh can be reached on 571-272-4888. 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.
/GRACE HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732