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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: VL1 and VL2 from Claim 52. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 37, 50 and 51 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 37, the part where it recites “increases continuously over a circumferential angle distance (beta) starting from the base thread outer radius (RAB) and then decreases again until it once more corresponds to the base thread outer radius (RAB)” should be omitted since it has already been introduced in Claim 36.
In Claim 50, “the tangent (T1) to the ellipse” should read “a tangent (T1) to the ellipse”.
In Claim 51, “the distance of the contact point (UPI)” and “the distance of the contact point (UP2)” should both read “a distance of the contact point”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 53, 55-57 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 53, the prior art does not teach any orthogonal to the imaginary tangent passing along the upper and lower flanks. The examiner can find no reason to combine or modify references of record without use of impermissible hindsight.
Regarding Claim 55, the prior art does not teach the ellipse SE. The examiner can find no reason to combine or modify references of record without use of impermissible hindsight.
Regarding Claim 56, the prior art does not teach numerical eccentricity in any form. The examiner can find no reason to combine or modify references of record without use of impermissible hindsight.
Regarding Claim 57, the prior art does not teach the ellipse SE. The examiner can find no reason to combine or modify references of record without use of impermissible hindsight.
Claim 52 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 52, the prior art does not disclose the lines VL1 and VL2. The examiner can find no reason to combine or modify references of record without use of impermissible hindsight.
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 30-58 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.
Claim 30 in Ln1 recites “in particular made of a light-metal material”. However, the phrase “in particular” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted the limitations following these phrases as preferred embodiments rather than structural limitations of the claimed invention.
Claim 35 recites, “the elevation maximum radius increases degressively starting from the screw tip”. However, the phrase “increases degressively” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the elevation maximum radius increase is changing from the start of screw tip based on the Fig.3a and from the paragraph 0026 of the instant application. For examination purposes, the elevation radius increase will be deemed consistent from the start of screw tip until the start of the 16x elevations, after which the rate of increase slows down based Fig.31 of the instant application.
Claim 37 recites, “ in particular follows a parabolic course”. However, the phrase “in particular” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted the limitations following these phrases as preferred embodiments rather than structural limitations of the claimed invention.
Claim 43 recites, “in particular on both sides”. However, the phrase “in particular” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted the limitations following these phrases as preferred embodiments rather than structural limitations of the claimed invention.
Claim 48 recites, “which flanks in particular form between them a base flank angle of 30°”. However, the phrase “in particular” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted the limitations following these phrases as preferred embodiments rather than structural limitations of the claimed invention.
Claim 50 recites, “less than 30° in particular less than 25°” twice for the load flank angle formed by both the load and guide flank. However, the phrase “in particular” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted the limitations following these phrases as preferred embodiments rather than structural limitations of the claimed invention.
Claim 52 recites, “with the semi-major axis (HA) which is less than 55° in particular less than 45°”. However, the phrase “in particular” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted the limitations following these phrases as preferred embodiments rather than structural limitations of the claimed invention.
Additionally, Claims 31-58 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 30.
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.
Claim(s) 30-51, 54 and 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phipard et al (US 3426642 A).
Regarding Claim 30, Phipard discloses A screw (27) for direct screwing into a component, in particular made of a light-metal material (please see 112b rejection, Col 6 Ln 50 indicates that the screw is made from metal), comprising a head (X, see Annotated figure 5), and a shank (28), wherein the shank is provided with a thread (30), the thread outer radius (RA, see annotated Figure 5) of which decreases (Col 4 Ln 62, shank 28 has a tapered work-entering end 29 of progressively decreasing pitch diameter, Fig. 5 and 6) starting from a cylindrical load-bearing region (TB, see Annotated Figure 5) having a constant load-bearing region radius (RT, see annotated Figure 5, it is the position of the examiner that RT has constant radius throughout the TB region), over a tip region (SB, see annotated Figure 5), towards the screw tip (T, see annotated Figure 5), the thread comprises, in its tip region that is the region in which the thread outer radius diminishes towards the screw tip (See Figure 5 annotated, the RA diminishes towards the tip T), at least five elevations (31) that are delimited in the circumferential direction and that extend in the radial direction (Figure 6 depicts the elevations 31 are limited to circumferential direction and extends radially), the thread outer radius changing in the region of the elevations such that an elevation maximum radius results which is associated with an elevation (Col 4 Ln 65, a plurality of projections or protuberances 31, each shaped to extend beyond the outline of the adjacent thread 30, Figure 6 also depicts that maximum thread outer radius occurs at the point of elevation 31 for each thread 30), the respective elevation maximum radius of at least two elevations- calibration elevations (see Figure 5 annotated, first two elevations of 31 are depicted as 16x, which provides respective maximum thread radius), at least three preforming elevations (14x, see annotated figure 5) is arranged between the calibration elevations (16x, see annotated Figure 5) and the foremost screw tip (Figure 5 annotated depicts three elevations of 14x between tip T and 16x elevations), which preforming elevations are smaller in their respective elevation maximum radius than the elevation maximum radius of the calibration elevations (annotated Figure 5 depicts that maximum thread radius provided by 14x elevations are smaller than the 16x elevations, also supported by Figure 6), and moreover the elevation maximum radius of the preforming elevations (14x) decreases in the direction of the screw tip (Figure 6 shows the gradual decrease of radius towards the tip).
Phipard fails to disclose that radius of at least two elevations of calibration elevations (16x) - are of equal size and corresponds to a calibration radius which is larger than the load-bearing region radius (RT).
However, Phipard discloses another embodiment (Fig 24 to 27), where all the thread clearances are eliminated in the main shank portion to include prevailing torque which minimize loosening of screw (Col 7 Ln 47). In order to reduce this torque so that it does not reach undesirably high level before the screw is seated, the height of the first 2 projections (elevations) are adjusted to be equal to the height of the thread in the TB, adjacent to the first elevation, so as to not exceed the height of the threads in the main shank (as depicted by Fig.27). It is the position of the examiner that this makes the radius of the two individual projections equal to the clearance fit or the calibration radius and hence are larger than the screw innate load bearing radius. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first two elevations (projections) of Phipard in Figure 5 to have equal radius, such that by adjusting their height, both their elevation maximum radius equals to the calibration radius (the clearance fit) and is more than the load bearing radius. This will enable the screw of Figure 5 to experience reduced loosening while having greater torque control when screwing to the workpiece (Col 8 Ln 3).
Regarding Claim 31, Phipard discloses all the limitations of Claim 30. Phipard also discloses wherein between the load-bearing region radius and the first elevation in the direction of the screw tip, there is a local minimum in the thread outer radius, which is smaller than the load-bearing region radius (Figure 5 annotated and Figure 6 depicts that the thread outer radius close to the tip is smaller than the load bearing radius RT).
PNG
media_image1.png
389
1168
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 32, Phipard discloses all the limitations of Claim 31. Phipard does not disclose wherein the ratio of the thread outer radius at the first local minimum to the load-bearing region radius is less than 0.996.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ratio above to be less than 0.996, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. With the tapered work-entering end 29 of progressively decreasing diameter thanks to the optimized ratio, it will be possible to screw into the workpiece more efficiently while enabling the elevations to resist rotation (Col 4 Ln 60).
Regarding Claim 33, Phipard discloses all the limitations of Claim 31. Phipard also discloses an outer thread radius formed at the second local minimum between the first calibration elevation and the second elevation (Figure 6 depicts that thread (30) radius formed between the first two projections 31, it is the position of the examiner that this radius is the outer thread radius at the second local minimum).
Phipard fails to disclose wherein the thread is designed such that a ratio of the percentage protrusion of the calibration radius to a minimum mean value to the percentage protrusion of the calibration radius to the load-bearing region radius is greater than 1.4, with the minimum mean value being divided by the mean value of the thread outer radius at the first local minimum between the load-bearing region and the first calibration elevation.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ratio above to be 1.4, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Such a design will enable the screw from Phipard to resist the rotation in a direction opposite to the arrow shown in Figure 6 (Col 4 Ln 60).
Regarding Claim 34, Phipard discloses all limitations of Claim 30. Phipard also discloses starting from the tip, over the tip area, the respective elevation maximum radius of the preforming elevations increases in the same way as the thread outer radius increases at the local minima between the preforming elevations (Figure 6 depicts that from the center to radially outwards, the maximum radius formed by the projections 31 increase same way as the thread 30 radius between each projections).
Regarding Claim 35, Phipard discloses all limitations of Claim 30. Phipard also discloses the elevation maximum radius increases degressively starting from the screw tip (please see 112b rejection, the elevation maximum radius increases consistently from the tip as per Figure 6, however due to the modification from Claim 30, the increase will be smaller towards the 16x elevation as per Figure 5 annotated).
Regarding Claim 36, Phipard discloses all limitations of Claim 30. Phipard also discloses wherein, in an elevation at a first circumferential angle position of a circumferential angle (Figure 6 refer to the arrow radial direction), the thread outer radius is at the level of the base thread outer radius (Figure 6 depicts the thread 30 radius equals to the overall thread radius from the point of the arrow) , on further increase it corresponds to the elevation maximum radius (as the direction moves along the arrow pointer towards the elevation 31, the overall thread radius increases), and, as it increases even further, it corresponds again to the base thread outer radius at the corresponding circumferential angle position of the circumferential angle at the end of the elevation (Figure 6 depicts that after the full circle the base radius of the thread corresponds to the thread 30 radius).
Regarding Claim 37, Phipard discloses all limitations of Claim 36. Phipard also discloses wherein, in an elevation, the thread outer radius increases continuously over a circumferential angle distance starting from the base thread outer radius and then decreases again until it once more corresponds to the base thread outer radius (see claim objection), in particular follows a parabolic course (see 112b rejection).
Regarding Claim 38, Phipard discloses all limitations of Claim 37. Phipard also discloses wherein, between two adjacent preforming elevations, starting from the screw tip, the base thread outer radius increases linearly (Figure 6 depicts the thread 30 radius increasing linearly between each projection from the tip)
Regarding Claim 39, Phipard discloses all limitations of Claim 30. Phipard also discloses wherein the load-bearing region radius is close to the calibration radius (It is implied in Col 2 Ln 22 that the load bearing radius of the shank is very close to the dimension of the clearance radius, since clearance between shank and workpiece is kept to a minimum).
Phipard does not disclose the load-bearing region radius is more than 90% of the calibration radius.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to load-bearing region radius is more than 90% of the calibration radius, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Such a design will enable the screw from Phipard to achieve minimum driving torque condition even more efficiently (Col 8 Ln 11).
Regarding Claim 40, Phipard discloses all limitations of Claim 30. Phipard also discloses that the clearance can be within few thousands of an inch (Col 8 Ln 16).
Phipard does not disclose wherein the calibration radius is at most 0.1 mm greater than the load-bearing region radius.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the calibration radius be at most 0.1 mm greater than the load-bearing region radius, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Such a design will enable the screw from Phipard to achieve minimum driving torque condition even more efficiently (Col 8 Ln 11).
Regarding Claim 41, Phipard discloses all limitations for claim 30. Phipard also discloses wherein the elevation maximum radius of a preforming elevation is greater than the nearest thread outer radius (RA) at the start of the nearest elevation in the direction of the head (Figure 6 depicts that the outermost thread 30 radius is smaller than the outermost projection radius formed by projection 31).
Regarding Claim 42, Phipard discloses all limitations of Claim 30. Phipard also discloses the direction at which the circumference of the radius proceeds (the arrow in Figure 6) as well as referring to the projections 31 having leading edges at 31a and trailing edges 31b and sharply inclined along the circumference (Col 4 Ln 65).
Phipard fails to disclose the circumferential angle (U) in the plane normal to the screw centerline between two adjacent elevation maxima is equal to a circumferential angle distance (alpha), with 360°/n - 10° < alpha < 360°/n + where n is between 2, 3 or 4, and the angular distance (beta) of an elevation is less than 2100/ n.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a range of angles claimed above, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Designing the circumferential angle and the angular distance of the elevation in such a way would enable the elevations to act as locking shoulders to resist rotation more efficiently (Col 4 Ln 70).
Regarding Claim 43, Phipard discloses all limitations of Claim 30. Phipard also discloses wherein the elevations also extend beyond the base thread in the axial direction (Figure 6 depicts the projections 31 extend beyond the base thread 30 in axial direction), in particular on both sides (please see 112b rejection).
Regarding Claim 44, Phipard discloses all limitations of Claim 30. Phipard also discloses wherein the length of the thread over the tip region is less than five turns (Figure 5 annotated shows that above the tip region there are only 4 and half rotations of thread length).
Regarding Claim 45, Phipard discloses all limitations of Claim 30. Phipard also discloses the screw has progressively decreasing pitch diameter towards the tip (which is increasing towards the head, Col 4 Ln 62).
Phipard does not disclose wherein the pitch of the thread line is between about 5° and 7° which corresponds to an increase of the base thread outer radius per turn by between 3% and 5%.
However, Phipard discloses that the invention is designed to provide a screw with minimum driving torque and maximum stripping strength of the workpiece (Col 2 Ln 45). Hence, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the increase of base thread outer radius per turn by the claim values above, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Such a design would enable the screw of Phipard on reducing the driving torque more efficiently. Moreover, the instant application places no criticality on either the pitch angle or increase in base thread radius.
Regarding Claim 46, Phipard discloses all limitations of Claim 30. Phipard also discloses, wherein, starting from the tip, the core diameter increases over the tip region (Figure 5 and 6 depicts the core diameter from the tip increasing as the shank goes towards the head).
Regarding Claim 47, Phipard discloses all limitations of Claim 46. Phipard also discloses, wherein, starting from the screw tip in the direction of the head, the relative increase in the core diameter is less than the increase in the base thread radius (It is the position of the examiner that Figure 5 annotated depicts that the shank diameter from the tip towards the head increases until it stops increasing, while the base thread radius continues to increase until the start of the load bearing region, exemplifying the rate of increase of thread radius to be more than the core diameter).
Regarding Claim 48, Phipard discloses all limitations of claim 30. Phipard also discloses wherein the thread flank width is narrow in the axial direction, and the thread has a guide flank facing the screw tip (Figure 5 annotated depicts guide flank GF facing the screw tip) and a load flank facing the screw head (Figure 5 annotated depicts load flank LF facing the screw head), which flanks in particular form between them a base flank angle of 30° (please see 112b rejection).
Regarding Claim 49, Phipard discloses all limitations of claim 30. Phipard also discloses wherein the guide flank, and the load flank are connected via a thread crest (see Figure 5 annotated for the thread crest A between the LF and GF). with the profile contour line of the thread crest following a conical path (Figure 5 annotated).
Phipard does not disclose the thread crest following an elliptical path.
However, Phipard mentions that the invention reduces contact friction between the screw thread flanks and the work piece to a minimum, due to the design of the flanks and the projections (Col 2 L5 and 10). Hence It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thread profile on Phipard to follow an elliptical path in order to further reduce contact friction, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.B. Further, the instant application places no criticality on the elliptical path section of Claim 49.
Regarding Claim 50, Phipard discloses all limitations of Claim 49. Phipard also discloses wherein the thread crest of the load-bearing region and/or of the elevation in the tip region is designed in such a way that the tangent to the ellipse at the point of contact in the transition to the load flank forms a load flank angle with the semi-major axis of the ellipse (Figure 5 annotated, it is the position of the examiner that along with the modification from claim 49, an imaginary tangential line will pass along GF and form an angle at the thread crest A) and in that the tangent to the ellipse at the point of contact in the transition to the guide flank forms a load flank angle with the semi-major axis of the ellipse (Figure 5 annotated, it is the position of the examiner that an imaginary tangential line will pass along LF and form an angle at the thread crest A).
Phipard does not disclose both the flank angle to be less than 30°, in particular less than 25° (please see 112b rejection)
However, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would modify the angle to ranges above since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. The motivation for incorporating such ranges of angles is to reduce the friction between screw thread and workpiece more efficiently (Col 2 L5 and 10). Moreover, the instant application places no criticality on range of angles in Claim 50.
Regarding Claim 51, Phipard discloses all limitations to Claim 49. Phipard also discloses a distance of the contact point from the semi-major axis (Figure 5 annotated, it is the position of the examiner that an imaginary tangent line drawn from the point marked LF (shown as the upper thread flank) to the center of the thread along Crest A, forms a distance).
Phipard does not disclose that this distance from load flank and guide flank would be greater than 1/3 * thread height * tan (load flank angle) and 1/3 * thread height * tan (guide flank angle) respectively. However, one having ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would modify the distance from load flank and guide flank to range of values above since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. The motivation for incorporating such range of distances is to reduce the friction between thread and workpiece more efficiently (Col 2 L5 and 10). Moreover, the instant application places no criticality on the values of distance in Claim 51.
Regarding Claim 54, Phipard discloses as limitations of claim 50, wherein the transition from the elliptical thread crest to the thread flank is tangential (Figure 5 annotated, with the modification of Claim 49 having the thread crest A following an elliptical path, the transition from the crest to the flank will follow the path that the imaginary tangent line takes).
Regarding Claim 58, Phipard discloses all limitations of Claim 30. Phipard also discloses the distance between adjacent flanks (Figure 5 annotated) as well as flank width (Figure 5 annotated).
Phipard does not disclose the distance between adjacent thread flanks at 90% of the thread height is more than 0.7 times the pitch and has a flank width there that is less than 0.5 times the thread height. However, one having ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would modify the thread height and the flank width to have ranges mentioned above, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. The motivation for incorporating such thread height and flank width is to reduce the friction between thread and workpiece more efficiently (Col 2 L5 and 10). Moreover, the instant application places no criticality on the values of dimensions in Claim 58.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Williams et al ( US 5141376 A) titled Self Drilling Screw
SUEBEMBACH et al (CA 2505770 A1) titled A Joining Assembly Including a Plastic Support Member And a Plastic Threaded Element
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMAD FAROOQ whose telephone number is (571)270-3284. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday between 10:00am to 6:30pm EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine Mills, can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/AHMAD FAROOQ/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights