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 .
Response to Amendment
In the applicant’s reply of 10 August 2026, the specification, abstract, drawings, and claims were amended. Based on these amendments, the drawing and abstract objections and the § 112(b) rejection included in the previous office action are withdrawn. The claim objections were addressed in part. The remaining claim objections are presented again below, along with two new objections.
With respect to the title of the invention, the applicant’s remarks state that the title was amended, but the applicant’s reply does not contain any instructions for amending the title, such that the corresponding objection is being maintained.
With respect to the amendments to the specification, 37 CFR 1.121(b) lists the acceptable methods for amending the specification. While a paragraph can be deleted by identifying the paragraph and providing a suitable instruction, changing the content of a paragraph requires the full text of the replacement paragraph or a substitute specification. Accordingly, paragraph [0026] is deleted, but paragraphs [0034] and [0051] are unchanged, which addresses one of the specification objections included in the previous office action. The remaining two are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 August 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument regarding Kato
Applicant argues that Kato is directed to an injection mold that “does not consider pressure by regulating by spacers,” and annotates Figure 2 of Kato with the assertion that no pressure is applied to the spacers 4, such that the spacers merely maintain a gap between the upper and lower molds.
This argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Claim 1 recites the plurality of stoppers as being “accommodated between the lower mold and the upper mold for maintaining a predetermined gap between the lower mold and the upper mold”. Maintaining a gap between the mold halves is therefore the very function the claim assigns to the stoppers, and applicant’s characterization of Kato’s spacers 4 as “merely maintaining gap between upper and lower molds” describes what claim 1 requires rather than a distinction from it.
Claim 1 further recites that “a pressure applied to the composite fabric by the upper mold and the lower mold is based on the plurality of stoppers”. Claim 1 does not require that pressure be applied to or borne by the stoppers themselves. As set forth in the Claim Interpretation section of the Office action mailed 13 April 2026, and in light of [0044]-[0048] of applicant’s specification, this limitation is interpreted to mean that the plurality of stoppers affects or regulates the pressure applied to the composite fabric. Kato’s spacers 4 perform this function: by setting the closed separation between the male die 8 and the female die 9, the spacers determine the degree to which the material positioned between the dies is compressed (see [0016]-[0017] and [0019]). Applicant does not dispute that Kato discloses spacers 4 provided on the guide pins 88 for controlling the distance between the male die 8 and the female die 9.
To the extent applicant argues that Kato does not itself apply a compressive pressure to a composite fabric, the argument attacks Kato individually rather than the combination as a whole. Kato is not relied upon for pressing the composite fabric. Heo discloses heat pressing the upper fabric material 1 between the mold halves (via heat press 7; see Figures 4 and 5 and pages 10-11 of the provided translation). Kato is relied upon only for the teaching that spacers provided on guide pins control the separation between the die halves. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejection is based on a combination of references. See MPEP 2145(IV); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Kato also remains analogous art. Kato is directed to die tooling in which a patterned surface is imparted to a laminate material held between opposed die halves, and is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor is concerned, namely controlling the closed separation between mold halves so as to regulate the compression of a workpiece. See MPEP 2141.01(a).
Applicant’s argument regarding Davis
Applicant argues that the location holes 510 of Davis are formed in the upper material 500 rather than on the upper mold, and are therefore different from the fixing grooves formed on the upper mold as recited in claim 1.
This argument likewise attacks a reference individually for a teaching it was not cited to provide. Davis is relied upon for the fixing pins provided on the mold for securing the workpiece (location pins 130; see [0054] and Figures 1B and 5), not for the fixing grooves on the opposing mold half. The fixing grooves were addressed separately through Jeon. See MPEP 2145(IV).
Moreover, Davis’s arrangement is affirmatively consistent with the claim rather than distinguishable from it. Claim 1 requires that the plurality of fixing pins fix the composite fabric so as to prevent it from moving. Davis achieves precisely that result by receiving the location pins 130 in location holes 510 formed in the upper material 500 (see [0054] and Figure 5). That Davis’s workpiece is provided with holes to receive the pins does not detract from Davis’s teaching that fixing pins on the mold retain the workpiece in a positive and repeatable position.
Applicant’s argument regarding Jeon
Applicant argues that the fixing groove 11 of Jeon is formed on the pressure frame 4, that the pressure frame 4 is not part of the upper mold 6, and that Jeon accordingly fails to teach fixing grooves formed on the upper mold at positions corresponding to the fixing pins.
Applicant is correct that Jeon’s mold assembly comprises three components: a lower mold 2 having a molding hole 1, a pressure frame 4 that descends onto the edge of the lower mold 2, and an upper mold 6 carrying the molding protrusion 5 (see Figures 5 and 6 and pages 2-3 of the provided translation). Applicant is also correct that the pin holes 10 that receive the fixing pins 8, and the fixing grooves 11 that receive the fixing protrusions 9, are formed on the underside of the pressure frame 4 rather than on the upper mold 6 (see Figures 6(a)-6(c) and pages 2-3). To the extent the Office action characterized Jeon as having two mold halves, that characterization is clarified here.
The argument is nonetheless unpersuasive for the following reasons.
First, Jeon was relied upon for the general teaching that fixing pins protruding from one component of a shoe upper mold assembly are received in corresponding recesses formed in the opposing component that closes down upon it, so that the workpiece is captured and held between the two components during molding. Jeon teaches exactly that: the material 14 is placed over the fixing pins 8 on the lower mold 2, the pressure frame 4 is lowered onto the material, and the material is clamped between the fixing pins 8 and the pin holes 10 (see Figures 6(a)-6(b) and pages 2-3). Jeon’s pressure frame 4 is a component of the mold assembly that is positioned above the lower mold 2 and in direct contact with the upper mold 6 when the assembly is closed (see Figure 6(c)). It therefore occupies the position that, in a two-part mold, would be occupied by a portion of the upper mold half. A mold half is not limited to its shaping surface. It is understood in the molding art to include clamping, retaining, and guiding structure associated with that surface.
Second, obviousness does not require that the structure of a secondary reference be bodily incorporated into the primary reference. The test is what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art, not whether the specific structures of the references could be physically combined. See MPEP 2143.01(III) and MPEP 2145(III); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1983). That Jeon distributes the fixing pins, the receiving recesses, and the shaping surfaces among three components rather than two does not defeat the teaching that opposed mold components are provided with mating pins and recesses to capture a shoe upper workpiece.
Third, providing the fixing grooves on the upper mold of modified Heo would have been obvious as a matter of straightforward design. Once the lower mold 10 of modified Heo is provided with fixing pins for securing the composite fabric, as taught by Davis, those pins necessarily project upward into the path travelled by the upper mold 9 as the mold closes. Some accommodation is required if the mold is to close at all, and the natural place to locate the fixing grooves is in the mold structure opposite to the lower mold 10, which is the upper mold 9, as Heo lacks structure corresponding to the pressure frame 4 of Jeon. This is the obvious solution, and one of ordinary skill in the art, who is a person of ordinary creativity and not an automaton, would have arrived at it directly. See MPEP 2141(II); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Applicant further argues that Jeon lacks any alignment mechanism between the lower mold 2 and the upper mold 6, and that Jeon therefore cannot obtain a good quality molded product. Jeon was not relied upon for aligning the mold halves. Alignment of the mold halves is supplied by Curley (mold alignment pins 120 and mold pin alignment holes 122; see Figures 10-13 and page 12, line 14, through page 13, line 3) and is further evidenced by Kato (guide pins 88 and guide grooves 98; see Figures 1 and 2 and [0016]). Applicant has not traversed the reliance on Curley for this limitation.
Finally, applicant’s annotation to Figure 9b of the present application asserts that the use of fixing pins matches the printing layer to the molded pattern without alignment error, yielding good quality. Claim 1 does not recite a printed layer, any registration between a printed layer and a molded pattern, or any quality criterion. Arguments must be commensurate in scope with the claims. See MPEP 2145.
Specification
The title of the invention is objected to because it includes a generic statement of purported merit (“with improved molding quality”) and is grammatically unclear (“using lower mold and upper mold interposed stopper therebetween”). A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. One of the following titles is suggested: “SHOE UPPER MOLDING MOLD USING LOWER MOLD, UPPER MOLD, AND STOPPER INTERPOSED THEREBETWEEN” or “SHOE UPPER MOLDING APPARATUS USING LOWER MOLD, UPPER MOLD, AND STOPPER INTERPOSED THEREBETWEEN”.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [0034], “the upper body 20” should be replaced with “the upper body 21”. Reference numeral 20 designates the upper mold, not the upper body. See [0073] and Figure 5.
In [0051], “the guiding pin 100” should be replaced with “the guiding pin 23”. Reference numeral 100 designates the stopper, not the guiding pin. See [0073] and Figure 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The preamble of claim 1 refers to “a lower mold, an upper mold, and a plurality of stoppers”. The body of claim 1 subsequently introduces “a lower mold”, “an upper mold”, and refers to “the plurality of stoppers”. The applicant should ensure consistent use of articles (a/an/the) between the preamble and the body of the claim.
Claim 1 recites “which are fitted into the guiding grooves of the lower mold to align the lower mold, and is placed over the upper surface of the lower mold to press the upper surface of the composite fabric”. To improve clarity, “is placed over” should be explicitly tied back to the upper body. Currently, the preceding clause discusses the guiding pins, but the context indicates that the “is placed over” clause is meant to modify the upper body rather than the guiding pins.
In claim 2, “the guiding pin” should be replaced with “the corresponding guiding pin” for consistency with “the plurality of stoppers is assembled to corresponding guiding pins” in claim 1.
In claim 5, “each of the plurality of the fixing pin is conical” should be replaced with “each of the plurality of fixing pins is conical”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 5 was amended to depend from claim 3 to provide proper antecedent basis for “the fixing pin” in claim 5. However, claim 1 was amended to incorporate the subject matter of claim 3, and claim 3 was canceled, such that claim 5 now depends from a canceled claim. This makes the scope of claim 5 unclear. For purposes of examination, claim 5 is being interpreted as depending from claim 1.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “a composite fabric attached on the lower mold” as a structural element of the claimed “shoe upper molding apparatus”. The composite fabric is the material worked upon by the molds of the apparatus during use. Under MPEP 2115, inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. However, because the composite fabric is explicitly recited as an element of the claimed combination, it is being treated as part of the claimed combination for purposes of examination.
Claim 1 recites that “a pressure applied to the composite fabric by the upper mold and the lower mold is based on the plurality of stoppers”. In light of the specification, which explains that the stopper thickness sets a predetermined gap between the molds that regulates the transmitted pressure (see [0044]-[0048]), this limitation is interpreted to mean that the plurality of stoppers affects or regulates the pressure applied to the composite fabric by the upper and lower molds.
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, 2, and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-0663085 (“Heo”) in view of WO 90/03744 (“Curley”), US 2003/0077344 (“Kato”), US 2001/0055684 (“Davis”), and KR 10-1498128 (“Jeon”).
Regarding claim 1, Heo discloses a shoe upper molding apparatus (see Figures 4-6 and pages 6-8 of the provided translation) using a lower mold, an upper mold, and a plurality of stoppers interposed between the upper and lower molds (see below), comprising:
a lower mold including a lower body with a predetermined length, width, and height (lower mold 10; see Figures 4 and 5 and pages 10-11);
a composite fabric attached on the lower mold (upper fabric material 1; see Figures 4 and 5 and page 10);
an upper mold including an upper body with a predetermined length, width, and height (upper mold 9; see Figures 4 and 5 and pages 10-11);
wherein the lower body includes recessed portions on the lower body with multiple grooves of predetermined shapes corresponding to the external shape and pattern of the shoe upper (grooves 3 formed on the upper mold 9; see Figures 4 and 5 and pages 10-11. While Heo’s orientation is inverted relative to the present application (i.e., the upper mold has the grooves and the lower mold has the protrusions), one of ordinary skill in the molding art would understand that the relative position of mold halves can generally be reversed. See also MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A) and (C).);
wherein the upper body includes raised portions on the upper body with multiple protrusions, which correspond to the recessed portions of the lower mold (protrusions 8 on lower mold 10; see Figures 4 and 5 and pages 10-11. As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have reversed the grooves 3 and protrusions 8 if desired.), and is placed over the upper surface of the lower mold to press the upper surface of the composite fabric (via heat press 7; see Figures 4 and 5 and pages 10-11).
Heo does not disclose that the lower body includes a plurality of guiding grooves formed at positions adjacent to the edges of the lower body, or that the upper body includes guiding pins protruding at positions corresponding to the guiding grooves of the lower mold, which are fitted into the guiding grooves of the lower mold to align the lower mold.
Curley is directed to multilayered, heat-embossed shoe components (abstract). Curley discloses an embossing mold 100 having a bottom mold plate 118 and a top mold plate 116 for heat-embossing shoe upper components. Mold alignment pins 120 are provided on the bottom mold plate 118, and mold pin alignment holes 122 are provided on the top mold plate 116, to enable proper alignment of the mold plates (see Figures 10-13 and page 12, line 14, through page 13, line 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Heo’s mold with alignment pins on one mold half and corresponding alignment holes on the other mold half, as taught by Curley, to ensure proper alignment of the upper and lower mold halves during assembly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Heo’s matched protrusion/recess mold requires precise alignment between the mold halves to avoid damaging the mold pattern or misaligning the embossed features on the shoe upper, and pin/hole alignment is a well-known, standard technique for achieving such alignment. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the positioning of the pins and holes can be inverted relative to Figure 13 of Curley, i.e., the pins 120 can be provided on the top mold plate 116 and the holes 122 on the bottom mold plate 118. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A) and (C).
Modified Heo does not disclose the plurality of stoppers accommodated between the lower mold and the upper mold for maintaining a predetermined gap between the lower mold and the upper mold, wherein the plurality of stoppers is assembled to corresponding guiding pins formed on the upper mold, respectively, and a pressure applied to the composite fabric by the upper mold and the lower mold is based on the plurality of stoppers.
Kato is directed to an injection molding apparatus for producing plastic products having a grain pattern (abstract). Kato discloses a male die 8 and a female die 9, with guide pins 88 at four corners of the male die 8 that slide fit into guide grooves 98 on the female die 9. Spacers 4 are provided on the guide pins 88 for controlling a distance between the male die 8 and the female die 9. The volume of a cavity space 5 is controlled by adjusting the thickness (height) of the spacers 4 (see Figures 1 and 2, [0016]-[0017], and [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided spacers on the alignment pins of modified Heo’s mold, as taught by Kato, to control the gap between the upper and lower molds and thereby regulate the compression pressure applied to the composite fabric. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that controlling the mold closure distance is important for achieving a properly-defined embossed pattern. Kato teaches that spacers on guide pins are a known solution to this problem. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) (combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results). Additionally, the spacers make it possible to press different products without replacing the molds ([0019] of Kato).
Modified Heo does not disclose that the lower mold has a plurality of fixing pins for fixing the composite fabric to prevent it from moving, or that the upper mold has fixing grooves at positions corresponding to the fixing pins.
Davis is directed to an apparatus and method for manufacturing a shoe upper using an embossing tool (abstract). Davis discloses an embossing mold 110 equipped with location pins 130 for positive and repeatable positioning of the upper material 500 relative to the mold. The upper material 500 has location holes 510 that receive the location pins 130 (see [0054] and Figures 1B and 5).
Jeon is directed to a shoe upper manufacturing mold having a lower mold 2, a pressure frame 4, and an upper mold 6 (see Figures 5 and 6 and pages 2-3 of the provided translation). Fixing pins 8 protrude from the lower mold 2 and are received in corresponding pin holes 10 formed in the underside of the pressure frame 4, which closes down upon the lower mold 2, with the material 14 captured between them (see id.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided modified Heo’s lower mold with fixing pins for securing the composite fabric, as taught by Davis, to achieve positive and repeatable positioning of the composite fabric relative to the mold pattern and to prevent the fabric from shifting during compression. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the composite fabric is susceptible to shifting during compression, and that such shifting would cause misalignment between the printed decorative layer and the molded 3D pattern. It would also have been obvious to provide corresponding fixing grooves on the upper mold, as taught by Jeon, so that the fixing pins are received by the opposing mold half when the molds are closed, thereby securing the fabric from both sides during the pressing operation and preventing interference between the pins and the upper mold surface.
Regarding claim 2, Kato’s spacers 4 are provided on the guide pins 88, and the cavity volume is controlled by “adjusting” the spacers (see [0016]), which implies the spacers are removable and replaceable. However, the specific detail of an opening on one side to facilitate engagement with the guiding pin is not explicitly disclosed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the spacer with a lateral opening to allow snap-on attachment and easy removal from the guide pin, as this is a routine design choice for a removable collar on a post. Providing a lateral opening allows the operator to attach and detach the spacer without removing the guide pin from the mold. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C) (making elements separable, In re Dulberg).
Regarding claim 4, modified Heo discloses that the fixing pins and fixing grooves are in a range of 5 to 20. Davis’s Figure 1B shows eight location pins 130 distributed around the mold surface, which falls within the claimed range of 5 to 20. Additionally, the specific number of fixing pins would have been a matter of routine optimization depending on the size and shape of the composite fabric and the degree of restraint needed to prevent shifting during compression. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) (routine optimization, In re Aller).
Regarding claim 5, as noted in the corresponding § 112(b) rejection, claim 5 is being interpreted as depending from claim 1. Jeon’s Figure 6 shows the fixing pins 8 having a tapered tip, which facilitates engagement with the corresponding hole 10 in the opposing mold half. Additionally, conical or tapered pin tips are a well-known shape for pins that must penetrate through fabric material and/or engage corresponding holes, to facilitate alignment and reduce the risk of tearing the fabric.
Regarding claim 6, modified Heo does not explicitly disclose a grip helping portion formed in an arched shape on both sides of the lower mold. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided arched grip portions on both sides of the lower mold to facilitate replacement/exchange of the lower mold or manual separation of the mold halves after pressing. Providing hand-grip features on a manually handled mold is a matter of basic ergonomic design, and the arched shape is a conventional form for hand grips that allows the operator to curl their fingers around the mold edge.
Regarding claim 7, modified Heo does not explicitly disclose that the lower mold and the upper mold are composed of aluminum or epoxy resin. Davis discloses that, in a preferred embodiment, the embossing mold 110 is made of aluminum (see [0049]). Davis further discloses that the texture inserts 120 are also made of aluminum in a preferred embodiment (see [0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made Heo’s molds from aluminum, as taught by Davis. See MPEP 2144.07 (selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, In re Leshin).
Regarding claim 8, modified Heo discloses that the pressure applied to the composite fabric by the upper mold and the lower mold is adjusted based on the thickness of the plurality of stoppers (Kato explicitly teaches that the volume of the cavity space 5 is controlled by adjusting the thickness (height) of the spacers 4; see [0016]).
Regarding claim 9, as discussed in the rejection of claim 8, modified Heo discloses that the pressure applied to the composite fabric by the upper mold and the lower mold is adjusted based on the plurality of stoppers (Kato teaches adjusting the spacers 4 to control the cavity space; see [0016]). Although Kato does not explicitly describe varying the number of spacers stacked on each guide pin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the total gap between the mold halves could be adjusted either by changing the thickness of individual spacers or by adding or removing spacers of fixed thickness from each guide pin. Varying the number of shims or spacers to control a gap is a well-understood and routine technique in mold and press tooling, and is functionally equivalent to changing the thickness of a single spacer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, see Figure 4 of KR 10-2018-0104475 A (reproduced below), where fixing pins 14 on an upper mold 11 are used to fix leather fabric 26 using holes 26a in the fabric 26, and the fixing pins 14 are inserted into grooves 19 on the lower mold 15 when the molds 11, 15 are closed.
PNG
media_image1.png
473
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John DeRusso whose telephone number is (571)270-1287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00 AM-6:00 PM ET.
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, Sam Zhao, can be reached at (571) 270-5343. 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.
/John J DeRusso/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights