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 .
Reissue Applications
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 11,559,964 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Maintenance Fee Reminder
Applicant is reminded during the prosecution of the instant reissue patent application, maintenance fees must be kept up to date for the Patent No. 11,559,964 (“the ‘964 patent”). A review of the maintenance fee status for the ‘964 patent shows the 3.5 year fee opens January 24, 2026, the surcharge starts July 25, 2026, and the last day to pay is January 25, 2027.
Certificate of Correction
U.S. Patent 11,559,964 (“the ‘964 patent”) has a Certificate of Correction date May 23, 2023 that makes the following changes: Claim 4, Column 21, Line 47, change “conduit configured” to - -conduit is configured- - and Claim 12, Column 22, Line 33 change “the least” to - -the at least- -. Normally, the changes would be required to be made in the preliminary amendment with the initial filing of a reissue application without any amending marks. However, there is no Column 21 or Column 22 in the ‘964 patent. Also, it doesn’t appear the language to be changed is in Claim 4 or Claim 12. As such if there are such changes in the claims, they should be made in the response to this action with the appropriate reissue application claim amendment procedures of 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g), such as amending with respect to the original patent, underlining new material, and putting single brackets around deleted material.
Consent of Assignee
The person who signed the submission establishing ownership interest is not recognized as an officer of the assignee, and the person who signed it has not been established as being authorized to act on behalf of the assignee. See MPEP § 324 (for applications filed before September 16, 2012) and § 325 (for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012). The title Corporate Director, Assistant General Counsel is not one of the recognized titles for someone who is authorized to act on behalf of the assignee.
Reissue Declaration
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective because none of the errors which are relied upon to support the reissue application are errors upon which a reissue can be based. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414. The error statement states:
The reissue is a broadening reissue. The Applicant erred in failing to fully appreciate the scope of the invention and, thus, claimed less than they were entitled to claim. The scope of the original claims is believed to be too narrow as these claims do not include composite storage tanks without a venting layer and an integrally formed stem. All error corrected in this reissue application arose without any deceptive intention of the part of the applicant. Applicant seeks to broaden at least claim 1.
Regarding broadening reissue applications, MPEP 1414(II) states in identifying an error the claim being broadened and a single word, phrase, or expression in the specification or in an original claim must be identified and how it renders the claim wholly or partly inoperative or invalid. While the error statement above does do this, the composite storage tank without a venting layer is impermissible recapture as explained below, and thus, cannot be an error. Further, the composite storage tanks without an integrally formed stem is not a limitation found in claim 1, and thus, cannot be an error.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 251: Improper Reissue Declaration
Claims 1-37 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 251: Recapture
Claims 26-28 and 32-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an impermissible recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. In re McDonald, 43 F.4th 1340, 1345, 2022 USPQ2d 745 (Fed. Cir. 2022); Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Youman, 679 F.3d 1335, 102 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The reissue application contains claim(s) that are broader than the issued patent claims. The record of the application for the patent family shows that the broadening aspect (in the reissue) relates to claimed subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application. Accordingly, the narrow scope of the claims in the patent was not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application.
MPEP 1412.02 establishes a three-step test for recapture. The three-step process is as follows:
(1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims;
(2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and
(3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.
Claims 26-29 and 31-37 are broader than claims 1-15. Claims 26-29 and 31-37 do not require at least one venting layer positioned between the at least one permeation barrier and the outer region, the at least one venting layer comprising a material configured to enable gases to pass through the at least one venting layer and substantially prevent liquids from passing through the at least one venting layer.
Therefore step 1 of the three-step test is met for claims 26-29 and 31-37.
The step of determining whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution includes two sub-steps. The first sub-step is to determine whether the applicant surrendered any subject matter in the prosecution of the original application. MPEP 1412.02 defines surrendered subject matter as a claim limitation that was originally relied upon by applicant in the original prosecution to make the claims allowable over the art.
MPEP 1412.02(I)(B)(1)(A) states “[w]ith respect to whether applicant surrendered any subject matter, it is to be noted that a patent owner (reissue applicant) is bound by the argument that applicant relied upon to overcome an art rejection in the original application for the patent to be reissued, regardless of whether the Office adopted the argument in allowing the claims. Greenliant Systems, Inc. v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 1271, 103 USPQ2d 1951, 1958 (Fed. Cir. 2012). As pointed out by the court, ‘[i]t does not matter whether the examiner or the Board adopted a certain argument for allowance; the sole question is whether the argument was made.’ Id.”
During the prosecution of the ‘964 patent, the Examiner rejected claims 1-6 and 16 as unpatentable over Short (EP-1108590), rejected claims 7 and 8 as unpatentable over Short in view of Gorman (US-3339783), rejected claims 9 and 11-15 as unpatentable over Short in view of Aceves et al. (US-6708502), and rejected claim 17 as unpatentable over Short in view of Pye et al. (US-7024868) and Delbarre (US-20030198768). The Applicant responded with arguments and amendments. The Applicant amended claim 1 to add the limitation, “at least one venting layer positioned between the at least one permeation barrier and the outer region, the at least one venting layer comprising a material configured to enable gasses to pass through the at least one venting layer and substantially prevent liquids from passing through the at least one venting layer” and argued none of the references alone, or in combination disclosed or suggested this feature as shown in excerpts below from the remarks filed September 1, 2022 (emphasis added).
Short describes a fuel permeation barrier fuel tank (10) that “includes a tank shell (12) having a wall formed from a plurality of layers (30, 32, 34, 36) ... includ[ing] at least an inner layer (30), an outer layer (34), a fuel permeation barrier layer (32) disposed between the inner layer (30) and the outer layer (34), and a thermoformable layer (36) disposed adjacent the outer layer (34).” Short, Abstract. The Office notes that Short does not “disclose at least one venting layer.” Office Action, p. 5. Therefore, Short does not describe all the elements of amended claim 1.
As described above, Short teaches a fuel permeation barrier fuel tank (10) that includes a tank shell including “at least an inner layer (30), an outer layer (34), a fuel permeation barrier layer (32) disposed between the inner layer (30) and the outer layer (34), and a thermoformable layer (36) disposed adjacent the outer layer (34).” Short, Abstract. The Office notes that Short does not “disclose at least one venting layer.” Office Action, p. 5. Therefore, Short does not teach all the elements of amended claim 1. The Office cites Gorman as teaching “that the tank structure has baffles secured to the inner region of the tank.” Office Action, p. 4. Gorman does not appear to teach a venting layer. Therefore, Gorman does not cure the deficiencies of Short.
The Office cites Aceves as teaching that “the container has at least one venting layer [Aceves, 303].” Office Action, p. 5. Aceves teaches a pressure vessel that “includes an inner pressure container 103 surrounding and enclosing a storage volume 102, and an outer container 104 surrounding the inner pressure container 103 to form an evacuated space 105 therebetween.” Aceves, col. 3, In. 19-23. In one of the embodiments, Aceves teaches that a “mechanical pump 301 is shown for purging permeated hydrogen found in the evacuated space 303.” Id., col. 5, In. 13-15. The Office appears to equate the evacuated space 303 to a venting layer citing its connection to the mechanical pump 301. Aceves does not teach that the evacuated space 303 is formed from “a material configured to enable gasses to pass through the venting layer and substantially prevent liquids from passing through the venting layer,” as recited in amended claim 1. Therefore, Aceves does not cure the deficiencies of Short. Furthermore, there is no teaching or suggestion in Short or Aceves that would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Short or Aceves in any manner that would result in a composite storage tank including all the elements of amended claim 1.
Therefore, the Patent Owner amended claim 1 to add the limitations of at least one venting layer positioned between the at least one permeation barrier and the outer region, the at least one venting layer comprising a material configured to enable gases to pass through the at least one venting layer and substantially prevent liquids from passing through the at least one venting layer and argued that the prior art did not include the limitation of at least one venting layer positioned between the at least one permeation barrier and the outer region, the at least one venting layer comprising a material configured to enable gases to pass through the at least one venting layer and substantially prevent liquids from passing through the at least one venting layer. Therefore, the newly presented claims must include the limitations of at least one venting layer positioned between the at least one permeation barrier and the outer region, the at least one venting layer comprising a material configured to enable gases to pass through the at least one venting layer and substantially prevent liquids from passing through the at least one venting layer and the argued limitation. Claims 26-28 and 32-37 fail to disclose any of the limitations added to the claims to make them allowable.
Therefore, the limitations of at least one venting layer positioned between the at least one permeation barrier and the outer region, the at least one venting layer comprising a material configured to enable gases to pass through the at least one venting layer and substantially prevent liquids from passing through the at least one venting layer are limitations which are considered surrendered subject matter.
The second sub-step is to determine whether any of the broadening of the reissue claims is in the area of the surrendered subject matter. The examiner must analyze all of the broadening aspects of the reissue claims to determine if any of the omitted/broadened limitation(s) are directed to limitations relied upon by applicant in the original application to make the claims allowable over the art.
Claim 26-28 and 32-37 is being broadened to omit the surrendered subject matter. Claims 29 and 31 include some of the details of the surrendered subject matter and eliminate some of the details of the surrendered subject matter.
Therefore step 2 of the three-part test is met.
MPEP 1412.02(I)(B)(1)(B) states “[w]ith respect to the “second step” in the recapture analysis, it is to be noted that if the reissue claim(s), are broadened with respect to the previously surrendered subject matter, then recapture will be present regardless of other unrelated narrowing limitations. In the decision of In re Mostafazadeh, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011), the Federal Circuit stated:
[T]he recapture rule is violated when a limitation added during prosecution is eliminated entirely, even if other narrowing limitations are added to the claim. If the added limitation is modified but not eliminated, the claims must be materially narrowed relative to the surrendered subject matter such that the surrendered subject matter is not entirely or substantially recaptured. Id. at 1361.”
Therefore, the third step of the analysis does not need to be performed for claim 26-28 and 32-37.
Therefore, claims 26-28 and 32-37 improperly recapture surrendered subject matter.
The third step in the recapture analysis is, to determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule. The third step include two different types of analysis that must be performed.
First, the reissue claim must be compared to any claims canceled or amended during prosecution of the original application. It is impermissible recapture for a reissue claim to be as broad as, or broader in scope than any claim that was canceled or amended in the original prosecution to define over the art. Claim scope that was canceled or amended is deemed surrendered and therefore barred from reissue. Clement, 131 F.3d at 1470, 45 USPQ2d at 1165.
Claims 29 and 31 delete the details of the venting layer is configured to substantially prevent liquids from passing through the at least one venting layer.
Second, it must be determined whether the reissue claim omits or broadens any limitation that was added or argued during the original prosecution to overcome an art rejection. Such an omission in a reissue claim, even if it is accompanied by other limitations making the reissue claim narrower than the patent claim in other aspects, is impermissible recapture. Pannu, 258 F.3d at 1371-72, 59 USPQ2d at 1600. In any broadening reissue application, the examiner will determine, on a claim-by-claim basis, whether the broadening in the reissue application claim(s) relates to subject matter that was surrendered during the examination of the patent for which reissue is requested) by an amendment narrowing claim scope in order to overcome a rejection and/or argument relying on a claim limitation in order to overcome a rejection.
During the prosecution of the ‘968 patent, the Examiner rejected claims 1-6 and 16 as unpatentable over Short (EP-1108590), rejected claims 7 and 8 as unpatentable over Short in view of Gorman (US-3339783), rejected claims 9 and 11-15 as unpatentable over Short in view of Aceves et al. (US-6708502), and rejected claim 17 as unpatentable over Short in view of Pye et al. (US-7024868) and Delbarre (US-20030198768). The Applicant responded with arguments and amendments. The Applicant amended claim 1 to add the limitation, “at least one venting layer positioned between the at least one permeation barrier and the outer region, the at least one venting layer comprising a material configured to enable gasses to pass through the at least one venting layer and substantially prevent liquids from passing through the at least one venting layer” and argued none of the references alone, or in combination disclosed or suggested this feature as shown in excerpts below from the remarks filed September 1, 2022 (emphasis added).
Short describes a fuel permeation barrier fuel tank (10) that “includes a tank shell (12) having a wall formed from a plurality of layers (30, 32, 34, 36) ... includ[ing] at least an inner layer (30), an outer layer (34), a fuel permeation barrier layer (32) disposed between the inner layer (30) and the outer layer (34), and a thermoformable layer (36) disposed adjacent the outer layer (34).” Short, Abstract. The Office notes that Short does not “disclose at least one venting layer.” Office Action, p. 5. Therefore, Short does not describe all the elements of amended claim 1.
As described above, Short teaches a fuel permeation barrier fuel tank (10) that includes a tank shell including “at least an inner layer (30), an outer layer (34), a fuel permeation barrier layer (32) disposed between the inner layer (30) and the outer layer (34), and a thermoformable layer (36) disposed adjacent the outer layer (34).” Short, Abstract. The Office notes that Short does not “disclose at least one venting layer.” Office Action, p. 5. Therefore, Short does not teach all the elements of amended claim 1. The Office cites Gorman as teaching “that the tank structure has baffles secured to the inner region of the tank.” Office Action, p. 4. Gorman does not appear to teach a venting layer. Therefore, Gorman does not cure the deficiencies of Short.
The Office cites Aceves as teaching that “the container has at least one venting layer [Aceves, 303].” Office Action, p. 5. Aceves teaches a pressure vessel that “includes an inner pressure container 103 surrounding and enclosing a storage volume 102, and an outer container 104 surrounding the inner pressure container 103 to form an evacuated space 105 therebetween.” Aceves, col. 3, In. 19-23. In one of the embodiments, Aceves teaches that a “mechanical pump 301 is shown for purging permeated hydrogen found in the evacuated space 303.” Id., col. 5, In. 13-15. The Office appears to equate the evacuated space 303 to a venting layer citing its connection to the mechanical pump 301. Aceves does not teach that the evacuated space 303 is formed from “a material configured to enable gasses to pass through the venting layer and substantially prevent liquids from passing through the venting layer,” as recited in amended claim 1. Therefore, Aceves does not cure the deficiencies of Short. Furthermore, there is no teaching or suggestion in Short or Aceves that would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Short or Aceves in any manner that would result in a composite storage tank including all the elements of amended claim 1.
While claims 29 and 31 are broader than claim 1 of the ‘964 patent, they are narrower than the originally filed claim 1 in the application in requiring the details of the vent layer except for the layer being configured to substantially prevent liquids form passing through the at least one vent layer. As the rest of the details of the venting layer comprising a material positioned between the at least one permeation barrier and the outer region, the material configured to enable gasses to pass through the at least one venting layer and the layer comprises an open cell material are not known in the art, these claim avoid impermissible recapture for being narrower in relation to the venting layer than the original surrendered patent application claim, but broader than the issued patent claim. Further, claim 30, as depends from claims 26 and 29, requires the entire venting layer limitation.
Claims 26-28 and 32-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an improper recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based.
Claims 29-31 are NOT rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an improper recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 26-27, 32-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nederberg et al. (WO-2015095473, referred to hereinafter as “Nederberg”). Regarding Claim 26, Nederberg discloses a composite storage tank (see page 20, lines 23-25) comprising: a wall structure (200 depicted in Figure 2)including at least three regions (210,211,221) comprising: an inner region 221 comprising a supporting composite layer (which becomes a composite with the addition of additives described in page 19, line 15 – page 20, line 15, particularly filler additives such as glass fiber as described at page 20, lines 13-15); an outer region 211 comprising a structural composite layer (which becomes a composite with the addition of additives described in page 19, line 15 – page 20, line 15, particularly filler additives such as glass fiber as described at page 20, lines 13-15); and at least one permeation barrier210 positioned between the inner region and the outer region and supported by the inner region and the outer region (see Figure 2), the at least one permeation barrier configured to substantially inhibit permeation of a fluid through the wall structure of the composite storage tank (see page 12, lines 22-27, “to provide a permeation barrier to a hydrocarbon fuel”) (Figures 1-3).
Regarding Claim 27, Nederberg discloses the structural composite layer comprises reinforced sections (adding filler additives such as glass fibers to the layer as described at page 20, lines 13-15 produces reinforced sections where the fibers are added) (Figures 1-3).
Regarding Claim 32, Nederberg discloses a port configured to provide a fluid pathway for at least one of filling and extracting a fluid in the composite storage tank (see page 20, lines 17-20, “a housing provided with a port for introducing a hydrocarbon fuel”) (Figures 1-3).
Regarding Claim 33, Nederberg discloses a stem integrally formed into one or more of the inner region, the outer region, and the at least one permeation barrier, wherein the stem extends to the port (see page 20, lines 17-20, “a housing provided with a port for introducing a hydrocarbon fuel” part of the composite storage tank made of at least one of the layer would have to extend out to the port forming a integrally formed stem) (Figures 1-3).
Regarding Claim 34, Nederberg discloses the at least one permeation barrier is secured to one of the inner or outer region (via tie layer 212) (Figures 1-3).
Regarding Claim 35, Nederberg discloses the at least one permeation barrier is secured to one of the inner region or the other region through at least one of an adhesive or a matrix material (tie layer 212, see page 15, line 6 to page 19, line 12 which describes the tie layer as a matrix material or adhesive) (Figures 1-3).
Regarding Claims 36-37, Nederberg does not expressly disclose the permeation barrier is secured to the inner region through a spraying process or a plating process. However, these are product-by-process claims. As such, the process for securing the permeation barrier to the inner region does not alter the structure of the composite storage tank itself. Therefore, these product-by-process claims are anticipated by Nederberg. See MPEP § 2113.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nederberg. Regarding Claim 28, Nederberg discloses the composite storage tank of claim 26, as advance above, but does not expressly disclose the structural composite layer comprises a greater number of composite plies than the supporting layer.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been obvious through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use any number of composite plies for the structural layer and the supporting layer, including more in the structural layer than the composite layer to achieve the desired weight to strength ratio of the overall composite storage tank and to give more strength to the outer structural layer as it will be exposed to the environment surrounding the tank, which would lead to possible debris contacting it and damaging it without the extra layers of protection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM E DONDERO whose telephone number is (571)272-5590. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6 am - 4 pm ET, Alternate Fridays.
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, EILEEN D LILLIS can be reached at 571-272-6928. 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.
/WILLIAM E DONDERO/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
CONFEREES: /WILLIAM C DOERRLER/ /EILEEN D LILLIS/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993 SPRS, Art Unit 3993