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 .
Status of Claims
The Non-Final Action submitted 01/28/2026 has been withdrawn and replaced by the Action contained herein.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 4, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US PG Pub. 2022/0364794A1) in view of Wang et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0104837A1).
[AltContent: textbox (Evaporation Section)][AltContent: textbox (Condensation Section)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
39
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Second End Part)][AltContent: textbox (Heat Insulation Section)][AltContent: textbox (First End Part)]
Liu Figure 2
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
792
189
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Evaporation Section)]
[AltContent: textbox (Condensation Section)]
Wang Figure 4
Regarding Claim 1, Liu discloses a heat pipe (1) comprising:
a pipe body (shown in figure 2) comprising:
a sealed cavity (13) comprising, a capillary structure (2) and a heat transfer medium (3);
a main pipe section comprising a heat exchange cavity (shown in figure 2), wherein the main pipe section is sequentially divided, in a length direction, into an evaporation section (shown in annotated figure 2 being a left portion) comprising a first end part (shown in annotated figure 2 containing the bulged space (14)), a heat insulation section (shown in annotated figure 2), and a condensation section (shown in annotated figure 2 being a right portion), and wherein the capillary structure is located in the heat exchange cavity (“At least one capillary structure layer 2 is disposed on a wall face of the tubular body 1”, ¶13); and
a first additional pipe section (14) comprising a first additional cavity (shown in figure 2), wherein the first additional pipe section is connected to the first end part (shown in annotated figure 2), wherein the first additional cavity is configured to accommodate a portion of the heat transfer medium when the heat pipe is vertically placed (shown in figure 2) and the first additional pipe section is located below a gravity direction (shown in figure 2), wherein
the portion is all or a part of the heat transfer medium (shown in figure 2, wherein the working fluid is shown pooling in the bulged space (14)), and wherein
the first additional pipe section is configured to not be in contact with a heat emitting component of a heat producing device when the heat pipe is mounted on
Liu fails to disclose the first additional pipe section is bent towards one side relative to the evaporation section to form an included angle between the first additional pipe section and the evaporation section.
Wang, also drawn to a heat pipe, teaches the first additional pipe section (131) is bent towards one side relative to the evaporation section (shown in annotated figure 4, wherein both ends of the heart pipe are bent) to form an included angle between the first additional pipe section and the evaporation section (shown in annotated figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the heat pipe of Liu with the first additional pipe section being bent towards one side relative to the evaporation section to form an included angle between the first additional pipe section and the evaporation section, as taught by Wang, the motivation being “In this way, the contact area between the heat pipe 13 and the partition heat sink 12 and the first heat sink 141 could be increased, and thus the cooling efficiency of the electrical connector 1 would be enhanced” ¶26.
Regarding limitations “evaporation section”, “condensation section”, “the first additional cavity is configured to accommodate a portion of the heat transfer medium when the heat pipe is vertically placed” and “the first additional pipe section is configured to not be in contact with a heat emitting component of a heat producing device when the heat pipe is mounted on the heat producing device” recited in Claim 1, which are directed to the intended use of sections of the heat pipe, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 4, Liu further discloses first cross-sectional area of the first additional cavity (14) is greater than a second cross-sectional area of the heat exchange cavity (shown in figure 2, wherein the bulged section (14) has a greater cross-sectional area when compared to the middle portion of the heat pipe) and wherein the evaporation section is located lower than the condensation section (shown in figure 2 below).
Regarding limitations “the evaporation section is located lower than the condensation section” recited in Claim 4, which are directed to the intended use of the heat pipe, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114. In the present case, the heat pipe is capable of being rotated as shown in figure 2, having an evaporation portion being situated lower that the condensation section.
Regarding Claim 6, Liu further discloses the capillary structure extends into the first additional cavity (“The tubular body 1 has a first end 11 and a second end 12 and an airtight chamber 13. At least one capillary structure layer 2 is disposed on a wall face of the tubular body 1”, ¶13).
Regarding Claim 9, a modified Liu further teaches the included angle is 100 degrees, 105 degrees, 110 degrees, 120 degrees, or 125 degrees (“an oblique angle contact”, as previously taught by Wang in the rejection of Claim 1, wherein “oblique” is defined by Merriam Webster as “an acute or obtuse angle”) the capillary structure is a wick (“The capillary structure layer 2 is selected from a group consisting of sintered powders, channels, woven meshes and any combination thereof”, ¶13), and wherein the wick is attached to an inner wall of the pipe body (shown in figure 2).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US PG Pub. 2022/0364794A1) in view of Wang et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0104837A1) as applied in Claims 1, 4, 6 and 9 above and in further view of Kanichi (Translation of JPH11294981A), hereinafter referred to as Kanichi.
Regarding Claim 2, Liu further discloses first additional cavity (14) is further configured to accommodate, when the heat pipe is vertically placed and the first additional pipe section (14) is located below the gravity direction, all of the heat transfer medium that fails to be maintained inside the capillary structure (shown in figure 2). Liu fails to disclose the pipe body further comprises a first pipe bend located between the evaporation section and the insulation section, wherein the evaporation section is parallel to the insulation section.
Kanichi, also drawn to a heat pipe, teaches the pipe body further comprises a first pipe bend (shown in figure 3, being the heat pipe bend adjacent the left most flat section) located between the evaporation section (shown in figure 3, being the left most flat/horizontal section) and the insulation section (shown in figure 3a, being the middle flat/horizontal section), wherein the evaporation section is parallel to the insulation section (shown in figure 3a).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting a flat heat pipe with a heat pipe having varying surface levels; further the prior art to Kanichi teaches that having a flat heat pipe (shown in figure 1) is a known equivalent to having a multi-stepped heat pipe (shown in figure 3a) for collecting and dissipating heat. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Liu with having a first pipe bend located between the evaporation section and the insulation section, wherein the evaporation section is parallel to the insulation section, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat pipe device; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Kanichi there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Liu by having a multi-stepped heat pipe since such a modification is an art recognized equivalent, wherein the multiple steps of the heat pipe allow for the collection and dissipation of heat from sources/sinks located at various positions with differing elevations within the assembly See MPEP 2144.04 IV (B).
Regarding limitations “the first additional cavity is further configured to accommodate, when the heat pipe is vertically placed and the first additional pipe section is located below the gravity direction, all of the heat transfer medium that fails to be maintained inside the capillary structure” recited in Claim 2, which are directed to the intended use of the heat pipe, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 3, a modified Liu further teaches the pipe body further comprises a second additional pipe section (14, “both of two ends of the heat pipe can be formed with the bulged spaces 14”, ¶15) comprising a second additional cavity (cavity of the bulged section (14) is shown in figure 2), wherein the condensation section comprises a second end part connected to the second additional pipe section (shown in figure 2 and ¶15, wherein the second bulged section (14) is situated on both ends of the heat pipe), and wherein the second additional cavity is configured to accommodate, when the heat pipe is vertically placed and the second additional pipe section is located below the gravity direction, the portion of the heat transfer medium (shown in figure 2, wherein the bulged section (14) on either end of the heat pipe functions the same). Liu fails to disclose a first pipe bend located between the evaporation section and the insulation section, wherein the evaporation section is parallel to the insulation section, and a second pipe bend located between the insulation section and the condensation section, wherein the condensation section is parallel to the insulation section and wherein the second additional pipe section is bent relative to the condensation section to form a second included angle between the second additional pipe section and the condensation section.
Kanichi, also drawn to a heat pipe, teaches a first pipe bend (shown in figure 3a, being the heat pipe bend adjacent the left most flat section) located between the evaporation section (shown in figure 3a, being the left most flat/horizontal section) and the insulation section (shown in figure 3a, being the middle flat/horizontal section), wherein the evaporation section is parallel to the insulation section (shown in figure 3a), and a second pipe bend (shown in figure 3, being the heat pipe bend adjacent the right most flat section) located between the insulation section and the condensation section (shown in figure 3a, being the right most flat/horizontal section), wherein the condensation section is parallel to the insulation section (shown in figure 3a).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting a flat heat pipe with a heat pipe having varying surface levels; further the prior art to Kanichi teaches that having a flat heat pipe (shown in figure 1) is a known equivalent to having a multi-stepped heat pipe (shown in figure 3a) for collecting and dissipating heat. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Liu with having a first pipe bend located between the evaporation section and the insulation section, wherein the evaporation section is parallel to the insulation section, and a second pipe bend located between the insulation section and the condensation section, wherein the condensation section is parallel to the insulation section and wherein the second additional pipe section is bent relative to the condensation section to form a second included angle between the second additional pipe section and the condensation section, wherein the evaporation section is parallel to the insulation section, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat pipe device; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Kanichi there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Liu by having a multi-stepped heat pipe since such a modification is an art recognized equivalent, wherein the multiple steps of the heat pipe allow for the collection and dissipation of heat from sources/sinks located at various positions with differing elevations within the assembly See MPEP 2144.04 IV (B).
Wang, also drawn to a heat pipe, teaches a second additional pipe section (133) is bent relative to the condensation section (shown in annotated figure 4) to form a second included angle between the second additional pipe section and the condensation section (shown in annotated figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the heat pipe of Liu with the second additional pipe section being bent relative to the condensation section to form a second included angle between the second additional pipe section and the condensation section, as taught by Wang, the motivation being “In this way, the contact area between the heat pipe 13 and the partition heat sink 12 and the first heat sink 141 could be increased, and thus the cooling efficiency of the electrical connector 1 would be enhanced” ¶26.
Regarding limitations “condensation” recited in Claim 3, which are directed to the intended use of the heat pipe, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 8, a modified Liu further teaches the included angle is 90 degrees to 135 degrees (“an oblique angle contact”, as previously taught by Wang in the rejection of Claim 1, wherein “oblique” is defined by Merriam Webster as “an acute or obtuse angle”), Liu fails to disclose the heat insulation section is a bent pipe section capable of elastic deformation.
Kanichi, also drawn to a heat pipe, teaches a heat insulation section (shown in figure 3a, being the middle flat/horizontal section) is a bent pipe section capable of elastic deformation (shown in figure 3a, wherein the middle flat/horizontal section is bent away from the end portions).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting a flat heat pipe with a heat pipe having a bent heat insulation section capable of elastic deformation; further the prior art to Kanichi teaches that having a flat heat pipe (shown in figure 1) is a known equivalent to having a multi-stepped heat pipe (shown in figure 3a) for collecting and dissipating heat. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Liu with having the heat insulation section being a bent pipe section capable of elastic deformation, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat pipe device; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Kanichi there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Liu by having a multi-stepped heat pipe since such a modification is an art recognized equivalent, wherein the multiple steps of the heat pipe allow for the collection and dissipation of heat from sources/sinks located at various positions with differing elevations within the assembly See MPEP 2144.04 IV (B).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US PG Pub. 2022/0364794A1) in view of Wang et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0104837A1) as applied in Claims 1, 4, 6 and 9 above in view of Lin et al. (Translation of CN202221260U), hereinafter referred to as Lin.
[AltContent: textbox (Evaporation Section)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (End Pipe Section)][AltContent: textbox (Transition Pipe Section)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
232
80
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Liu Figure 2
Regarding Claim 7, Liu further discloses the first additional pipe section (14) comprises an end pipe section (shown in annotated figure 2 directly above) and a transition pipe section (shown in annotated figure 2 directly above), wherein the end pipe section (shown in annotated figure 2 directly above) is connected to the evaporation section (shown in annotated figure 2 directly above) through the transition pipe section (shown in annotated figure 2 directly above), wherein the evaporation section is a flat pipe (shown in figure 2, see also ¶13). Liu fails to disclose the end pipe section is a circular pipe.
Lin, also drawn to a heat pipe, teaches an evaporation section is a flat pipe and the end pipe section is a circular pipe (“an evaporation space 101 can be flat while the condensation space 102, 103 is circular”, ¶41).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting an end pipe section being circular with an end pipe section being flat; further the prior art to Lin teaches that it is old and well known to transfer from a flat shape to a circular shape or vice versa in a heat pipe for collecting and dissipating heat. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Liu with having a circular end pipe section, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat pipe device; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Lin there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Liu by having a circular end pipe since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV (B).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US PG Pub. 2022/0364794A1) in view of Wang et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0104837A1) as applied in Claims 1, 4, 6 and 9 above and in further view of Chi et al. (Translation of CN106887419B), hereinafter referred to as Chi.
Regarding Claim 8, a modified Liu further teaches the included angle is 90 degrees to 135 degrees (“an oblique angle contact”, as previously taught by Wang in the rejection of Claim 1, wherein “oblique” is defined by Merriam Webster as “an acute or obtuse angle”), Liu fails to disclose the heat insulation section is a bent pipe section capable of elastic deformation.
Chi, also drawn to a heat pipe, teaches a heat insulation section (30) is a bent pipe section capable of elastic deformation (shown in figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the heat pipe of Liu with the heat insulation section being a bent pipe section capable of elastic deformation, as taught by Chi, the motivation being “said connecting part is stressed can be deformed such that the first radiating plate and the second radiating plate are relative height is changed, to install the tolerance fit between the different heating elements, and realize the uniform temperature of the heating element between”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-17 and 19-20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Page 12 of the Arguments the Applicant states, “The term ‘evaporation section’ is a commonly used term of art for heat pipes. It refers to a section of the heat pipe that performs a specific function: evaporation of the heat transfer media contained therein. Specifically, it is the section where heat is received from an outside source and where an internal heat transfer medium is often heated to the point of boiling. The term ‘condensation section’ is also a commonly used term of art for heat pipes. It refers to a section of the heat pipe that performs a specific function: condensation of the heat transfer media contained therein. Specifically, it is the section where heat is given off from the heat pipe, often in the form of release of the heat of condensation from an internal heat transfer medium condensing from vapor to liquid form. Both of these terms are used extensively in the prior art and are done so referencing the same functions. See, e.g., Wang 6, Lin 2-3, Chi 2, and Kawabata 2. Thus, it is improper to consider the functional terms ‘evaporation section’ and ‘condensation section’ as intended use. Instead, they must be given their full patentable weight consistent with the specification and their use within the art.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 is drawn to a heat pipe that is a vacuum sealed space and transfers heat from a heat input (evaporation section) to a heat output (condensation section). The input/output of heat from the heart pipe does not structurally limit the heat pipe, wherein the input/output of heat merely discloses a manner of operating said heat pipe. If a structurally identical heat pipe is found in the prior art of record, the instant invention would not be structurally divergent from such a reference(s) based upon the location of a heat emitter or heat dissipator. A claim containing a limitation regarding how the heat pipe is used, regarding heat inputs/outputs does not differentiate the claimed heat pipe from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim
On Page 13 of the Arguments the Applicant states, “In addition, the Office Action also states that the phrase ‘the first additional cavity is configured to accommodate a portion of the heat transfer medium when the heat pipe is vertically placed’ is directed to an intended use of the heat pipe and thus is not given any patentable weight. Again, this is a functional recitation of how the apparatus operates. Moreover, claims 1 and 20 positively recite the heat transfer medium within the heat pipe, as thus this language affirmatively discusses the claimed elements and how they interface with each other in a certain orientation. As such, this limitation must be given its full patentable weight consistent with the specification and its plain meaning.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. If a structurally identical heat pipe is found in the prior art of record, the instant invention would not be structurally divergent from such a reference(s) if the claimed heat pipe is rotated or used in a vertical manner. A claim containing a limitation regarding how the heat pipe is used, regarding the heat pipe’s orientation does not differentiate the claimed heat pipe from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 and 6-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL ALVARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0930-1800.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights