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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 25th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed March 16th, 2026 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 12 has been canceled. Claims 1-11 and 13-20 remain pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed August 29th, 2025.
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.
Claims 1-11, 13-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) in view of legal precedent and further in view of Allen III et al. (US 6335376).
Regarding claim 1, Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) teaches a method for retrieving a light plastic fraction from plastic waste (Page 1 lines 15), wherein the light plastic fraction comprises low-density plastics and has a density lower than 1 g/cm3 at 20 °C (Page 4 lines 17-21, Page 6 lines 15-19), wherein said method comprises:
- providing the plastic waste and superheated water in a vessel at a temperature between 120 °C and 270 °C (Page 3 lines 12-15, 19-20) to obtain a superheated aqueous plastic mixture (Page 3 lines 12-15, 25-28);
- agitating the superheated aqueous plastic mixture in the vessel allowing for phase separation of low-density plastics and high-density plastics to occur (Page 3 lines 12-33, Page 5 lines 16-26) in order to obtain the light plastic fraction on top of an aqueous fraction (Page 4 lines 15-34, polyolefins form light plastic fraction which floats on top of water), and to obtain a heavy fraction below the aqueous fraction (Page 4 lines 12-34 “contamination”); and
- separating the light plastic fraction from the heavy and aqueous fractions to obtain a retrieved light plastic fraction (Page 4 lines 15-21).
Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) lacks teaching providing the plastic waste and superheated water in a vessel in a weight ratio of water to plastic waste of at least 10:1.
Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) however explains that during the routing experimentation process, the guidelines may be used that a higher transfer of non-plastic material into the aqueous phase or a stronger dehalogenation effect will require a longer residence time, a higher temperature a higher weight ratio between the aqueous phase and the mixed plastic-containing waste, and/or a larger extent of agitation (Page 8 lines 20-31), and specifically explains that the weight ratio between the aqueous phase and the mixed plastic-containing waste is preferably higher with decreasing weight percentage of plastic in the mixed plastic-containing waste, and may be influenced by the characteristics of any subsequent treatment process of the aqueous phase, such as a wastewater treatment facility imposing limits on the amount of allowable waste per volume unit of aqueous phase (Page 8 line 32-Page 9 line 6). Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) states that it is preferred that the weight ratio is below 10:1 in view of the general desire to limit the reactor volume (Page 9 lines 7-10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) to include providing the plastic waste and superheated water in a vessel in a weight ratio of water to plastic waste of at least 10:1, in order to provide a weight ratio optimal for a mixed plastic-containing waste with a lower weight percentage of plastics, instances of a higher transfer of non-plastic material into the aqueous phase, a stronger dehalogenation effect, or due to limitations on the amount of allowable waste per volume of the aqueous phase in downstream wastewater treatment facilities, wherein this ratio may be reached with lower amounts of plastic waste delivered to the vessel in order to still limit the reactor volume, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) lacks teaching to obtain a heavy plastic fraction below the aqueous fraction, wherein the heavy plastic fraction comprises high-density plastics and has a density higher than 1 g/cm3 at 20 °C; and separating the light plastic fraction from the heavy plastic and aqueous fractions to obtain a retrieved light plastic fraction.
Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) however states that if the purified mixed plastic particles mainly comprise polyolefins, the sink float method is carried out in water (Page 4 lines 17-21). Polyolefins have a density less than 1 g/cm3 at 20 °C. Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) provides the sink-float treatment to separate contamination originating from any non-plastic ingredients (Page 4 lines 15-17), but additionally states that the mixed plastic waste may include a wide variety of plastics including polyolefinic plastics (such as polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP)), polystyrene (PS), polyalkylenehalides (such as PVC), polyamides, and polyalkylene terephtalates (such as polyethylene terephtalate (PET)) (Page 6 lines 13-19). Polyalkylenehalides, polyamides, and polyalkylene terephthalates all have a density higher than 1 g/cm3 at 20 °C, and would sink along with the contaminants in the sink-float operation carried out in water.
Allen III et al. (US 6335376) teaches a method for retrieving a light plastic fraction from plastic waste (Col. 2 lines 10-13), wherein said method comprises: agitating the superheated aqueous plastic mixture in the vessel (Fig. 4 #439) allowing for phase separation of low-density plastics and high-density plastics to occur (Col. 13 lines 25-40) in order to obtain the light plastic fraction on top of an aqueous fraction (Col. 15 lines 25-40, 59-61 “L1”), and to obtain a heavy plastic fraction below the aqueous fraction (Col. 15 lines 25-40, 59-61 “H1”), wherein the heavy plastic fraction comprises high-density plastics and has a density higher than 1 g/cm3 at 20 °C (Col. 15 lines 34-45); and separating the light plastic fraction from the heavy plastic and aqueous fractions to obtain a retrieved light plastic fraction (Col. 15 lines 25-40, 59-61 “L1”, Col. 16 lines 7-14).
Allen III et al. (US 6335376) explains that the differential density alteration unit provides enhanced parameter distributions, specifically improved distribution differentials, and enables the separation of materials with a reduced number of hydrocyclone stages for a given purity and will reduce the amount of plastic material processed for a given yield requirement (Col. 14 lines 17-25). Allen III et al. (US 6335376) further explains that the possibility to segregate plastic materials on the basis of differential thermal properties increases the scope of plastics which can be recycled by a straightforward mechanical system, providing separable product streams of different target plastics (Col. 8 lines 18-28).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) to include to obtain a heavy plastic fraction below the aqueous fraction, wherein the heavy plastic fraction comprises high-density plastics and has a density higher than 1 g/cm3 at 20 °C; and separating the light plastic fraction from the heavy plastic and aqueous fractions to obtain a retrieved light plastic fraction as taught by Allen III et al. (US 6335376) in order to provide multiple recyclable product streams of different target plastics.
Regarding claim 2, Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the low-density plastics comprise polyolefins (Page 6 lines 15-19).
Regarding claim 3, Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) lacks teaching the method of claim 1, wherein the high-density plastics comprise polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polycarbonate (PC), polyamides (PA) and/or polyvinyl chloride (PVC).
Allen III et al. (US 6335376) teaches a method for retrieving a light plastic fraction from plastic waste (Col. 2 lines 10-13), wherein the high-density plastics comprise polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polycarbonate (PC), polyamides (PA) and/or polyvinyl chloride (PVC) (Col. 2 lines 25-42).
Allen III et al. (US 6335376) explains that the possibility to segregate plastic materials on the basis of differential thermal properties increases the scope of plastics which can be recycled by a straightforward mechanical system, providing separable product streams of different target plastics (Col. 8 lines 18-28).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) to include wherein the high-density plastics comprise polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polycarbonate (PC), polyamides (PA) and/or polyvinyl chloride (PVC) as taught by Allen III et al. (US 6335376) in order to provide multiple recyclable product streams of different target plastics.
Regarding claim 4, Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) lacks teaching the method of claim 1, further comprising separating the heavy plastic fraction from the aqueous fraction.
Allen III et al. (US 6335376) teaches a method for retrieving a light plastic fraction from plastic waste (Col. 2 lines 10-13), further comprising separating the heavy plastic fraction from the aqueous fraction (Col. 15 lines 25-40, 59-61 “H1”, Col. 16 lines 7-14).
Allen III et al. (US 6335376) explains that the possibility to segregate plastic materials on the basis of differential thermal properties increases the scope of plastics which can be recycled by a straightforward mechanical system, providing separable product streams of different target plastics (Col. 8 lines 18-28).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) to include separating the heavy plastic fraction from the aqueous fraction as taught by Allen III et al. (US 6335376) in order to provide multiple recyclable product streams of different target plastics.
Regarding claim 5, Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the aqueous fraction comprises biogenic materials (Page 9 lines 25-30).
Regarding claim 6, Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the retrieved light plastic fraction comprises less than 0.050 wt% chloride (Page 7 lines 15-27, Page 14 see “chlorine content wt%” in Table 2 less than 0.05wt%), and/or less than 0.100 wt% sulfur, and/or less than 0.100 wt% nitrogen, and/or less than 3.0 wt% oxygen, based on the total dry weight of said retrieved light plastic fraction.
Regarding claim 7, Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the retrieved light plastic fraction comprises polyethylene (PE) and/or polypropylene (PP) (Page 4 lines 17-21, Page 6 lines 15-19) in an amount of more than 95 wt% (Page 16 see Table 4 “chlorine content wt%”, “phosphor content wt%”, “ash content wt%”, and “water content wt%” having a combined wt% of less than 5%, therefore remaining light PE/PP fraction would have an amount of more than 95 wt%), based on the total dry weight of the retrieved light plastic fraction.
Regarding claim 8, Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) teaches the method of claim 1, said method comprising melting at least part of the low-density plastics by contacting the plastic waste and superheated water (Page 3 lines 19-28) and/or by agitating the superheated aqueous plastic mixture to obtain at least partially molten plastics (Page 3 lines 25-33), followed by cooling said molten plastics (Page 4 lines 6-8) such that the retrieved light plastic fraction comprises a granular-like material comprising the low-density plastics (Page 4 lines 10-21).
Regarding claim 9, Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the heavy fraction further comprises inorganic materials (Page 4 lines 15-21, Page 7 lines 2-7).
As stated previously in claim 1, Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) lacks teaching the heavy plastic fraction.
Allen III et al. (US 6335376) teaches a method for retrieving a light plastic fraction from plastic waste (Col. 2 lines 10-13), wherein said method comprises:
to obtain a heavy plastic fraction below the liquid fraction (Col. 15 lines 25-40, 59-61 “H1”, Col. 16 lines 7-14), and wherein the heavy fraction further comprises inorganic materials (Col. 8 lines 29-64).
Allen III et al. (US 6335376) explains that the possibility to segregate plastic materials on the basis of differential thermal properties increases the scope of plastics which can be recycled by a straightforward mechanical system, providing separable product streams of different target plastics (Col. 8 lines 18-28).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) to include to obtain a heavy plastic fraction below the aqueous fraction, wherein the heavy fraction further comprises inorganic materials as taught by Allen III et al. (US 6335376) in order to provide multiple recyclable product streams of different target plastics.
Regarding claim 10, Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) lacks explicitly teaching the method of claim 1, wherein the plastic waste comprises at least 55 wt% polyolefins based on the total weight of the plastic waste.
Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) explains that preferably, the plastic fraction of the mixed plastic waste comprises at least 50 wt.% stable plastics such as polyolefins, as these materials will not significantly degrade during the process, and the purified mixed plastic particles are suitable for a higher number of applications (Page 6 lines 25-30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) to include wherein the plastic waste comprises at least 55 wt% polyolefins based on the total weight of the plastic waste in order to decrease degradation and increase the number of applications the plastic particles are suitable for, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 11, Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) lacks teaching the method of claim 1, wherein the plastic waste is according to DKR-310 and/or according to DKR-350 standards.
Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) explains that the plastic waste may denote waste from any source, and may include individual lots of mixed plastic-containing waste to be treated in the process according to the invention may well originate from one source and may even contain only one type of waste and/or only one type of plastic, and further explains that the waste may be collected from municipal waste or waste collected through a targeted recycling program active in collecting industrial waste or specific post-consumer waste (Page 2 lines 17-28).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the plastic waste is according to DKR-310 and/or according to DKR-350 standards because Applicant has not disclosed that retrieving a light plastic fraction from plastic waste according to DKR-310 and/or according to DKR-350 standards provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant' s invention to perform equally well with plastic waste according to DKR-310 and/or according to DKR-350 standards because plastic waste according to DKR-310 and DKR-350 standards includes plastic bags or wrap and packaging plastics, which are commonly found in municipal waste, industrial waste, or specific post-consumer waste. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) to obtain the invention as claimed.
Regarding claim 13, Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plastic waste comprises pieces of which the largest dimension is at most 150 mm (Page 5 lines 6-7).
Regarding claim 14, Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plastic waste and superheated water is provided and/or is agitated in the vessel at a temperature between 180 °C and 240 °C (Page 3 lines 19-20).
Regarding claim 15, Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method is continuous (Page 4 line 35-Page 5 line 1).
Regarding claim 16, Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the low-density plastics comprise polypropylene (PP) and/or polyethylene (PE) (Page 6 lines 15-19).
Regarding claim 18, Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) lacks explicitly teaching the method of claim 1, wherein the plastic waste comprises at least 70 wt% polyolefins based on the total weight of the plastic waste.
Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) explains that preferably, the plastic fraction of the mixed plastic waste comprises at least 50 wt.% stable plastics such as polyolefins, as these materials will not significantly degrade during the process, and the purified mixed plastic particles are suitable for a higher number of applications (Page 6 lines 25-30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) to include wherein the plastic waste comprises at least 70 wt% polyolefins based on the total weight of the plastic waste in order to decrease degradation and increase the number of applications the plastic particles are suitable for, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 19, Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) lacks teaching the method of claim 1, wherein the weight ratio of the water to the plastic waste in the vessel (L/S ratio) is at least 20:1.
Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) however explains that during the routing experimentation process, the guidelines may be used that a higher transfer of non-plastic material into the aqueous phase or a stronger dehalogenation effect will require a longer residence time, a higher temperature a higher weight ratio between the aqueous phase and the mixed plastic-containing waste, and/or a larger extent of agitation (Page 8 lines 20-31), and specifically explains that the weight ratio between the aqueous phase and the mixed plastic-containing waste is preferably higher with decreasing weight percentage of plastic in the mixed plastic-containing waste, and may be influenced by the characteristics of any subsequent treatment process of the aqueous phase, such as a wastewater treatment facility imposing limits on the amount of allowable waste per volume unit of aqueous phase (Page 8 line 32-Page 9 line 6). Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) states that it is preferred that the weight ratio is below 10:1 in view of the general desire to limit the reactor volume (Page 9 lines 7-10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) to include wherein the weight ratio of the water to the plastic waste in the vessel (L/S ratio) is at least 20:1, in order to provide a weight ratio optimal for a mixed plastic-containing waste with a lower weight percentage of plastics, instances of a higher transfer of non-plastic material into the aqueous phase, a stronger dehalogenation effect, or due to limitations on the amount of allowable waste per volume of the aqueous phase in downstream wastewater treatment facilities, wherein this ratio may be reached with lower amounts of plastic waste delivered to the vessel in order to still limit the reactor volume, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 20, Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plastic waste comprises pieces of which the largest dimension is at most 50 mm (Page 5 lines 6-7).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) in view of in view of legal precedent, Allen III et al. (US 6335376) and further in view of Williams (US 5894996).
Regarding claim 17, Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the inorganic materials comprise sand, metal, additives, pigments and/or glass (Page 4 lines 15-21, Page 7 lines 2-7).
Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) lacks teaching wherein the method further comprises separating the heavy plastic fraction from the inorganic materials.
Williams (US 5894996) teaches a method for retrieving a light plastic fraction from plastic waste (Col. 1 lines 6-11), wherein the method further comprises separating the heavy plastic fraction from the inorganic materials (Col. 11 lines 1-16, 21-24).
Williams (US 5894996) explains that the contaminants may be removed from the heavy component stream in order to provide a cleaned and segregated component plastic of high purity which is available for re-use (Col. 11 lines 15-20).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) to include wherein the method further comprises separating the heavy plastic fraction from the inorganic materials as taught by Williams (US 5894996) in order to provide a cleaned plastic component of high purity which is available for re-use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 16th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Van der Linden does not teach separation of plastics from plastics, and the chemical characterization of the purified mixed particles of Van der Linden also support that phase separation has not occurred as shown by the ash content, chlorine content, and heating value of the purified mixed plastics, the Examiner would like to clarify that the ash content ranging between 2.4-3.4 wt% in Table 4 of Van der Linden is similar to the 2.8 wt% ash content in the instant application, and the chlorine content between 0.01-0.076 wt% shown by Table 4 is similar to the 0.012 wt% in the instant application, and finally the heating value of 44.0-44.3 MJ/kg is aligned with the normal value for polyolefins of 44 MJ/kg.
While Van der Linden does not explicitly teach the separation of low density plastics from high density plastics, it states that if the purified mixed plastic particles mainly comprise polyolefins, the sink float method is carried out in water (Page 4 lines 17-21). Polyolefins have a density less than 1 g/cm3 at 20 °C. Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) provides the sink-float treatment to separate contamination originating from any non-plastic ingredients (Page 4 lines 15-17), but additionally states that the mixed plastic waste may include a wide variety of plastics including polyolefin plastics (such as polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP)), polystyrene (PS), polyalkylenehalides (such as PVC), polyamides, and polyalkylene terephthalates (such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET)) (Page 6 lines 13-19). Polyalkylenehalides, polyamides, and polyalkylene terephthalates all have a density higher than 1 g/cm3 at 20 °C, and would sink along with the contaminants in the sink-float operation carried out in water, and therefore be separated from the low density polyolefin plastics.
The Examiner would additionally like to clarify that Van der Linden explains that during the routing experimentation process, the guidelines may be used that a higher transfer of non-plastic material into the aqueous phase or a stronger dehalogenation effect will require a longer residence time, a higher temperature a higher weight ratio between the aqueous phase and the mixed plastic-containing waste, and/or a larger extent of agitation (Page 8 lines 20-31), and specifically explains that the weight ratio between the aqueous phase and the mixed plastic-containing waste is preferably higher with decreasing weight percentage of plastic in the mixed plastic-containing waste, and may be influenced by the characteristics of any subsequent treatment process of the aqueous phase, such as a wastewater treatment facility imposing limits on the amount of allowable waste per volume unit of aqueous phase (Page 8 line 32-Page 9 line 6). Van Der Linden et al. (WO 02074845) states that it is preferred that the weight ratio is below 10:1 in view of the general desire to limit the reactor volume (Page 9 lines 7-10). Therefore, the higher weight ratio is known to improve the separation of the plastic fractions, and multiple factors are considered during the routine experimentation process to optimize the separation, and this is not an unexpected result.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 12 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Saitoh have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of legal precedent.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Tachibana have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Allen III et al. (US 6335376).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Molly K Devine whose telephone number is (571)270-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/MOLLY K DEVINE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights