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 Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 16 recites all the same limitations as claim 1, and adds a limitation regarding the substrate being spaced apart from the phase-change layer by the interface layer. However, the interface layer necessarily exists between the substrate and the phase-change layer, as the word “interface” is defined as being the place where two different substances touch or interact. Furthermore, as will be explained in the below rejection, there is evidentiary support for the inherent formation of the interface layer at the point where the substrate and the phase-change layer interact. Therefore, although claim 16 includes a limitation that is not explicitly recited in claim 1, claim 1 implicitly requires this same limitation by virtue of inherency. Claims 1 and 16 are therefore so close in content that they both cover the same thing, and thus claim 16 is considered to be a substantial duplicate of claim 1.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The word “closed” should read “enclosed”, to convey that the substrate is fully surrounded by the phase-change layer and the interface layer.
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 3–15 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.
Claims 3 and 4 each recite a pore density as “about” a certain number of pores per inch. The term “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. “About” implies some amount of allowable variance from the recited value, but neither the claims nor the specification clearly define how much variance is actually allowed by the term, and thus the scope of the claims cannot be determined. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret “about” as encompassing ±10% of the recited value, i.e., “about 80 pore per inch” can include pore densities up to 88 pore per inch.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the phase-change layer comprises a first portion in the at least one void and a second portion that is spaced apart from an outside of the at least one void”. The meaning of this limitation is unclear. As the Examiner understands the invention, the phase-change layer (gallium) comprises a first portion that is within the at least one void, i.e., a portion of the gallium is within the copper pore. Claim 5 further states that a second portion of the phase-change layer is spaced apart from the outside of the at least one void, but the phrase “spaced apart” is unclear in this context, as it implies the second portion is somehow spaced away from the outside of the void. The Examiner believes the intended phrasing is “wherein the phase-change layer comprises a first portion in the at least one void, and a second portion that is outside the at least one void”. This interpretation is based on Figure 1B of Applicants’ Specification, in which the Examiner believes element 131 corresponds to the portion “in the at least one void”, and element 132 corresponds to the portion “spaced apart from an outside of the at least one void”.
Claims 6–10, being dependent on claim 5, inherit its deficiencies, and are rejected on the same grounds of indefiniteness.
Regarding claims 11 and 14, claim 11 recites the limitation wherein “the substrate is disposed between the first layer and the second layer” of the interface layer, and claim 14 recites the limitation wherein “the substrate and the interface layer are disposed between the first portion and the second portion” of the phase-change layer. The plain meaning of the word “disposed” in this context is “put in place”, but this definition requires the practitioner to actively “put” the substrate in place. In other words, as presently claimed, claims 11 and 14 suggest that the substrate is somehow deposited or arranged on the other layers, rather than the other layers being deposited on the substrate. Based on the Examiner’s interpretation of the present invention, the Examiner believes the passive adjectives “positioned” or “located” more accurately convey the ordering of the layers. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will herein interpret “disposed” as synonymous with “positioned”.
Claims 12–15, being dependent on claim 11, inherit its deficiencies, and are rejected on the same grounds of indefiniteness.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guo (CN 109959288 A, hereinafter “Guo”).
Evidentiary support for the formation of CuGa2 is provided by Mu et al. (Metals 2020, 10, 1223, hereinafter “Mu”), and is applied to claims 1 and 16 and all claims dependent thereon.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Guo teaches a phase change thermal storage composite heat exchanger (see generally abstract and paragraph 0009), wherein the heat exchanger comprises a shell and top plate, as well as a high thermal conductivity support frame (synonymous with the substrate of the present invention) and a thermal storage medium (synonymous with the phase-change material of the present invention) (see paragraph 0009). Guo teaches the limitations wherein the composite structure comprises a substrate including at least one void (see paragraph 0011 teaching a plurality of foamed metal substrates, each of which includes at least one void by virtue of their porosity), and a phase-change layer filling at least a portion of the at least one void (see paragraph 0013 teaching the thermal storage medium as being encapsulated in the substrate). Guo further teaches the limitation wherein the substrate comprises copper (Cu; see paragraph 0011 teaching foamed copper), and wherein the phase-change layer comprises gallium (Ga; see paragraph 0012 teaching a gallium-based alloy; the transitional phrase “comprising” allows for other, unnamed species, meaning a gallium-alloy anticipates the claimed phase-change layer; see MPEP 2111.03 regarding transitional phrases). Guo fails to explicitly teach the limitations wherein the composite comprises an interface layer, wherein the interface layer comprises a copper gallium (CuGa2) compound, and wherein the interface layer is in direct contact with the substrate and the phase change layer. However, Mu provides evidence that such a layer is inherent to Guo’s invention. Mu teaches solid copper and liquid gallium as undergoing solid-liquid interdiffusion bonding, which produces a CuGa2 interaction product (see generally abstract). The process requires applying a positive pressure to liquid gallium to force it to flow into the pores of the copper mesh, after which the copper atoms diffuse into the surrounding liquid gallium and react to form CuGa2, which then solidifies and hinders further diffusion, thus forming an interface layer of CuGa2 between the solid copper and the liquid gallium (see section 4, “Discussion”; also see Figure 10). Guo teaches the use of pressure impregnation to force the liquid gallium into the pores of the foamed copper (see paragraph 0014 teaching pressure impregnation; Guo specifically teaches a preference for vacuum impregnation, whereby a negative pressure would be applied to “pull” the gallium into the pores, rather than a positive pressure “pushing” the gallium as taught by Mu; although the Examiner believes this would achieve the same end result, it is also noted that MPEP 2123 states that preferred embodiments are not considered to teach away from the broad disclosure; because Guo teaches pressure impregnation, this includes positive pressure impregnation and negative pressure impregnation). Therefore, Guo’s invention must inherently form the same interface layer (see MPEP 2112 regarding inherency). Regarding the limitation wherein the interface layer is in direct contact with the substrate and the phase change layer, it is noted that Mu teaches the formation of a thin layer of Cu9Ga4 from the interaction between copper and CuGa2 (see Figure 10e and f), which would mean that the interface layer is not in direct contact with the substrate. However, Mu teaches this layer as forming over long periods of time at high temperature (see page 6, paragraph immediately below Table 1 teaching the only interaction product of Cu and Ga as being CuGa2 at 20 °C, wherein Cu9Ga4 eventually replaces all the CuGa2 when the composition is held at 200 °C for 80 h). As Guo does not teach any high-temperature holding time, the formation of Cu9Ga4 is not considered to be inherent to Guo’s invention (see MPEP 2112 regarding inherency). Therefore, Guo anticipates each and every limitation of claim 1.
Claim 16, being a substantial duplicate of claim 1, is rejected on the same grounds (see the above Claim Objections section). Claim 16 recites the same limitations as claim 1, and further limits the substrate as being spaced apart from the phase-change layer by the interface layer, but as the interface layer is necessarily formed by the interaction of the substrate and the phase-change layer, the interface layer will always space these two layers apart from one another (see MPEP 2112 regarding inherency). Therefore, claim 16 is anticipated by Guo.
Regarding claim 2, Guo teaches the composite structure of claim 1, and further teaches the limitation wherein the interface layer fills at least a portion of the at least one void (see paragraph 0014 teaching the use of pressure impregnation to pull liquid gallium into the pores [voids] of foamed copper; as discussed above, the interaction between liquid gallium and solid copper inherently results in an interface layer of CuGa2, and thus if the gallium fills at least a portion of the at least one void, the interface layer must also fill at least a portion of the at least one void; see MPEP 2112 regarding inherency). Guo therefore anticipates claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, Guo teaches the composite structure of claim 16, and further teaches the limitation wherein an entirety of the at least one void is filled with the phase-change layer and the interface layer (see paragraph 0040 teaching the copper foam as having a porosity of 70–80%, and the volume ratio of gallium:copper as being 8:2 to 7:3 [80%:20% to 70%:30%], i.e., the copper’s voids comprise 70–80% of its total volume, and the volume of gallium perfectly overlaps with the volume of the copper voids, indicating the entire volume of each and every void is filled with the phase-change layer; as established previously, the interaction between solid copper and liquid gallium inherently results in the formation of the claimed interface layer, and thus the entirety of the at least one void is filled with both the phase-change layer and the interface layer; see MPEP 2112 regarding inherency). Guo therefore anticipates claim 17.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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.
Claims 3–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo.
Evidentiary support by Mu, applied to parent claim 1, is incorporated herein. Mu is further applied to claims 6, 11, and all claims dependent thereon.
Evidentiary support for the relation between pore size and pore density is provided by Borakhade (Techno-Societal, 2018, hereinafter “Borakhade”), and is applied to claims 3 and 4.
Evidentiary support for the heterogeneous nucleation of gallium is provided by Ki (Adv. Sci. 2024, 11, 2310185, hereinafter “Ki”) and is applied only to claim 12.
Evidentiary support for the lattice parameters of CuGa2 is provided by Materials Project (“Ga2Cu, mp-11359”, 2014, <materialsproject.org>, hereinafter “Materials Project”) and is applied only to claim 13.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Guo teaches the composite structure of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach the pore density of the substrate as being greater than or equal to about 50 pore per inch (as claimed in claim 3), and less than or equal to about 80 pore per inch (as claimed in claim 4). However, Guo teaches the pore size of the foamed copper, which is understood to be inversely proportional to the pore density (see paragraph 0011 teaching an average pore size of 0.3–1 mm; the smaller the pores are, the more pores can fit within one inch of material, and thus smaller pore sizes are associated with higher pore densities). Borakhade teaches several different pore densities of foamed copper, wherein a pore size of 0.000495 m (0.495 mm) is associated with a pore density of 60 PPI (pore per inch). As Guo teaches a pore size range that includes 0.495 mm, and extends to even smaller pores (and thus higher PPI), Guo inherently encompasses pore densities that overlap with the range defined by claims 3 and 4, i.e., about 50 to about 80 PPI (see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges). Guo therefore renders claims 3 and 4 prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Guo further teaches the limitation wherein the phase-change layer comprises a first portion in the at least one void and a second portion that is spaced apart from an outside of the at least one void (see the above 112(b) rejection of claim 5, wherein the Examiner interprets this limitation as reciting the phase-change layer as existing both within and outside of the at least one copper void; due to the phrase “at least one void”, this limitation requires that a portion of the phase change layer exists in at least one void, while another portion exists outside said void; Guo teaches a highly porous copper substrate impregnated with gallium [see paragraph 0040], and so a portion of the gallium exists inside one of the pores, while another portion exists outside said pore, dispersed throughout the rest of the porous copper). Guo therefore renders claim 5 prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Guo further teaches the limitation wherein the thickness of the interface layer is less than a width of the first portion of the phase-change layer. As discussed previously, the formation of the interface layer is inherent, and it forms at the interface of copper and gallium through solid-liquid inter-diffusion bonding (see Mu, abstract). Thus, as gallium fills the pores of Guo’s foamed copper (see paragraph 0040), the interface layer begins forming at the interface of the solid and the liquid. Furthermore, as the interface layer forms, it solidifies, hindering further diffusion (see Mu, “Discussion”, stage 2 and Figure 10d). As Guo teaches pore sizes up to 1 mm (see paragraph 0011), it can be inferred that the interface layer is thinner than the width of the remaining gallium in the pore, at least for the largest of the pores. A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have reasonably arrived at this conclusion based on an understanding of the reaction kinetics of solid-liquid inter-diffusion bonding, as evidenced by Mu’s disclosure (see MPEP 2144.02 regarding the reliance on scientific theory to support an obviousness rejection). Guo therefore renders claim 6 prima facie obvious.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Guo further teaches the limitations wherein the interface layer comprises a first layer in direct contact with the first portion of the phase-change layer (referring to the first portion in the at least one void, as recited in claim 5), and a second layer in direct contact with the second portion of the phase-change layer (referring to the second portion outside the at least one void, as recited in claim 5), wherein an entirety of the at least one void of the substrate is filled with the first layer of the interface layer and the first portion of the phase-change layer (see the above rejection of claim 5, wherein Guo teaches the impregnation of multiple pores of the foamed copper, thus teaching the phase-change layer as being divided into two portions; as the interface layer inherently forms between the copper and the phase-change layer, the interface layer can be similarly divided into portions [one portion within the at least one pore, and one portion outside said pore]; as Guo does not teach any other components beside the phase-change layer [and the inherent interface layer] as being impregnated in the copper substrate, this means that the entirety of the at least one void is filled with the first layer of the interface layer and the first portion of the phase-change layer; see MPEP 2112 regarding inherency). Guo therefore renders claims 7 and 8 prima facie obvious.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Guo further teaches the limitation wherein the substrate comprises an inner surface in direct contact with the first layer of the interface layer, wherein the inner surface of the substrate and the first portion of the phase-change layer are spaced apart from each other with the first layer of the interface layer interposed therebetween (see paragraph 0040 teaching the impregnation of gallium in the foamed copper, i.e., filling the inner surface of the pores, wherein the interface inherently forms between the copper and gallium; see MPEP 2112 regarding inherency). Guo fails to explicitly teach the interaction of an outer surface of the substrate with the second layer of the interface layer. Guo teaches a volumetric excess of gallium to copper (see paragraph 0040 teaching an 8:2 to 7:3 volumetric ratio of gallium:copper), but fails to disclose whether this results in any gallium existing outside the pores of the foamed copper. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have reasonably arrived at the claimed invention by simply increasing the volumetric ratio further. Gallium is the phase-change material, and provides the desired heat absorbing effect by changing from the solid phase to the liquid phase when absorbing heat from the surroundings, and so it stands to reason that a higher volume of gallium (which may exceed the volume capacity of the copper pores) can absorb even more heat from the surroundings. The motivation supporting this modification most closely aligns with KSR Rationale E, which states it is prima facie obvious to choose from a finite number of known, predictable solutions (higher volumetric ratios, such as 9:1) with a reasonable expectation of success (Guo already teaches copper and gallium as compatible, and there is no teaching to suggest that gallium existing outside the pores would cause the invention to be unsuitable for its intended purpose, so one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success). The proposed modification results in the outer surface of the copper being coated in a second portion of the phase-change material, which inherently forms a second portion of the interface material interposed therebetween (see MPEP 2112 regarding inherency). This further meets the limitation of claim 10, wherein the second portion of the phase-change layer fully covers the second layer of the interface layer. Therefore, claims 9 and 10 are rendered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claims 11 and 14, Guo teaches a composite structure comprising a substrate including at least one void, wherein the substrate comprises copper (see paragraph 0011 teaching foamed copper), a phase-change layer filling at least a portion of the at least one void, wherein the phase-change layer comprises gallium (see paragraph 0012 teaching a gallium-based alloy), an interface layer between the substrate and the phase-change layer, wherein the interface layer comprises a copper gallium (CuGa2) compound (see Mu providing evidence of this interface layer forming inherently), wherein the interface layer comprises a first layer disposed in the at least one void and a second layer disposed outside the at least one void, wherein the substrate is disposed between the first layer and the second layer (see the above 112(b) rejection of claim 11; if the first portion of the gallium is present in at least one void, the second portion of gallium is present outside said void, and since the formation of the interface layer is inherent, the first layer of the interface layer is disposed in the at least one void, and the second layer is disposed outside said void, and wherein the substrate is positioned between the two layers because the structure of the substrate is what separates one pore from another; this can be represented as follows: Void 1 – Ga|CuGa2|Cu|CuGa2|Ga – Void 2, wherein the copper substrate is positioned between the two CuGa2 layers).
The ordering of interface and phase-change layers further meets the limitations of claim 14, wherein the phase-change layer comprises a first portion in direct contact with the first layer of the interface layer and a second portion in direct contact with the second layer [of the interface layer], and wherein the substrate and the interface layer are disposed between the first portion and the second portion. Using the previous representation, Void 1 – Ga|CuGa2|Cu|CuGa2|Ga – Void 2, the substrate and interface layers are positioned between the first and second gallium phase-change portions. Guo therefore renders claims 11 and 14 prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 12, Guo teaches the composite structure of claim 11. Although Guo implicitly teaches the formation of an interface layer by virtue of the inherency established by Mu, Guo does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein a nucleation process of the phase-change layer begins on a surface in direct contact with the interface layer, when a phase of the phase-change layer is changed from liquid to solid. However, the solidification of liquid gallium can only occur through two pathways: heterogeneously (solidifying on a solid surface), or homogeneously (solidifying from within the liquid). Ki teaches the heterogeneous nucleation of liquid gallium as being more energetically favorable when the contact angle between gallium and the substrate is less than about 59° (see Figure 5a), and further teaches the contact angle between Ga and CuGa2 as being about 16°. Thus, it is more energetically favorable for gallium to begin nucleating on the surface of CuGa2, which means claim 12 is inherently met by Guo, whose invention necessarily sees liquid gallium in contact with a CuGa2 interface (see MPEP 2112 regarding inherency). Claim 12 is therefore rendered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 13, Guo fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein a grain of the interface layer comprises a first side, a second side and a third side that are connected to each other, wherein the first to third sides cross each other, and wherein the grain of the interface layer has a cuboidal shape, wherein a length of the third side is greater than a length of the first side and a length of the second side. However, as has been established, Guo inherently teaches the formation of a CuGa2 interface layer, and Materials Project teaches CuGa2 as having a tetragonal crystal system in the P4/mmm point group, which is a cuboidal shape (a=b≠c, α=β=γ=90°), wherein the lattice parameters indicate that the length of one side is longer than the length of the other two sides (see Materials Project, “Lattice Parameters” and “Space Group” sections). Therefore, because Guo’s invention necessarily results in the formation of CuGa2, and because CuGa2 inherently forms a cuboidal shape in the P4/mmm point group, Guo inherently teaches the limitations of claim 13 (see MPEP 2112 regarding inherency). Guo therefore renders claim 13 prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 15, Guo further teaches the limitation wherein when a phase of the phase-change layer is changed from liquid to solid, a nucleation process begins between about 5 °C and about 29.8 °C (see paragraph 0040 teaching the gallium-based alloy as having a liquid metal phase transition temperature of 25 °C, meaning that as the temperature drops below 25 °C, the gallium-based alloy will nucleate and solidify; 25 °C falls within the claimed range). Guo therefore renders claim 15 prima facie obvious.
Claims 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo.
Evidentiary support by Mu, applied to parent claim 16, is incorporated herein.
Regarding claims 18–20, Guo teaches the composite structure of claim 16, but fails to explicitly teach the limitations wherein the interface layer encloses an entire surface of the substrate, wherein the phase-change layer surrounds an entire surface of the interface layer, and wherein the substrate is enclosed (see the above Claim Objection) by the phase-change layer and the interface layer. Guo teaches the phase-change layer as filling the entirety of the voids within the copper foam (see paragraph 0040, wherein the volume of the pores perfectly matches the volume ratio of gallium:copper, indicating that the entirety of the pores are filled), but fails to explicitly teach whether the gallium also coats the entire surface of the copper, i.e., outside the pores. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have reasonably arrived at the claimed invention by simply increasing the volumetric ratio further. Gallium is the phase-change material, and provides the desired heat absorbing effect by changing from the solid phase to the liquid phase when absorbing heat from the surroundings, and so it stands to reason that a higher volume of gallium (which may exceed the volume capacity of the copper pores) can absorb even more heat from the surroundings. The motivation supporting this modification most closely aligns with KSR Rationale E, which states it is prima facie obvious to choose from a finite number of known, predictable solutions (higher volumetric ratios, such as 9:1) with a reasonable expectation of success (Guo already teaches copper and gallium as compatible, and there is no teaching to suggest that gallium existing outside the pores would cause the invention to be unsuitable for its intended purpose, so one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success). The proposed modification results in the entire surface of the substrate being enclosed by the interface layer, which is surrounded by the phase-change layer, thus meeting the limitations of claims 18–20. Guo therefore renders claims 18–20 prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan P Loughran whose telephone number is (571)272-2173. The examiner can normally be reached Tue, Thu, Sat, Sun from 7 AM to 5 PM.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571)270-3149. 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.
/R.P.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights