DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Amendment filed 8/6/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6, 8-10, 13-21, 24 and 26-31 remain pending in the present application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 13, 15, and 18-19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morand US 2006/0248862 (hereinafter Morand) in view of Dayton US 2008/0310772 (hereinafter Dayton).
PNG
media_image1.png
792
868
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re. Cl. 1, Morand discloses: A waste disposal system (Fig. 1) comprising a waste disposal unit (1, Fig. 1), a film supporting device (17, Fig. 1) removably mountable to the waste disposal unit (see Fig. 1), and a tubular film (18, Fig. 1) accumulated in the film supporting device (see Fig. 1), wherein: the waste disposal unit includes: a receptacle (see 1, Fig. 1) delimiting an inner cavity (see 2 Fig. 1), a wall defining a periphery of the receptacle (3, 4, 5, 6, Fig. 1), a lid (11, Fig. 1-2) mounted atop the receptacle (see Fig. 1-2), a support (15, Fig. 1) configured to support the film supporting device within the inner cavity (see Fig. 1), the support located between a top opening of the receptacle (13, Fig. 2) and a waste receiving volume of the inner cavity (see Fig. 1, the support 15 is located between the top opening 13 and the inner volume of 1 where the knot on 18 is located for instance), the support located inwardly with respect to the wall (see Fig. 1, 15 is located inwardly of 3-6), the support configured to support the film supporting device (see Fig. 1), with the film supporting device fully recessed within the inner cavity (see Fig. 1-2, fully recessed as being below 61), with the support holding the film supporting device between the top opening of the waste disposal unit and the waste receiving volume of the inner cavity (see Fig. 1-2); the film supporting device includes an annular body (see 17, Fig. 1-2 and Paragraph 0028 also discusses the use of the cassette in Morand US 2003/0121923 which will also be referenced throughout this rejection and referred to as Morand 923) including an inner annular wall delimiting a central opening of the annular body (see Fig. 1 and also 116a, Fig. 3-4 in Morand 923), an outer annular wall (see Fig. 1 and also 118a, Fig. 3 in Morand 923), a bottom horizontal wall at a bottom end of the annular body (see Fig. 1, 23 and 120, Fig. 4 in Morand 923), a volume for receiving a tubular film accumulated in a cavity between the inner annular wall (see Fig. 1, where 18 is located and 122, Fig. 4 in Morand 923), the outer annular wall and the bottom wall, the outlines of each of the central opening and the outer annular wall in a transverse plane of the device having variable diametrical dimensions with a first diameter being of greater dimension than a second diameter (Paragraph 0033 in Morand 923, the device is oval shaped, thus having the two diametrical dimensions, one being larger than the other); and the tubular film is accumulated in the cavity (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 4 of Morand 923), with a free annular end of the tubular film dispensable outwardly from the cavity, the free annular end being adapted to be closed to form a bag with an opening of the bag being accessible through the central opening (see Fig. 1-2 and Fig. 4 in Morand 923).
Re. Cl. 2, Morand discloses: an outer periphery of the annular body as defined by the outer annular wall has an outline geometrically similar to the outline of the central opening (see Fig. 1-2 and as schematically shown in cross section in Figs. 3-4 of Morand 923, the walls 116 and 118 have the same shape and both make up the annular body or oval shape of the part 12).
Re. Cl. 3, Morand discloses: further comprising a cover wall (114, Fig. 3-4 in Morand 923) projecting radially outwardly from the inner annular wall (see Fig. 3-4 in Morand 923)
Re. Cl. 4, Morand discloses: an outer periphery of the annular body as defined by the cover wall has an outline geometrically similar to the outline of the central opening (Paragraph 0033 in Morand 923, the oval shape of the cassette 110 includes the cover, thus the cover has an oval shape just like the opening).
Re. Cl. 5, Morand discloses: the cover wall comprises a tear-off portion to access the free annular end of the tubular film (Paragraph 0009 of Morand 923).
Re. Cl. 13, Morand discloses: a bag-closing mechanism for closing the tubular film extending into the inner cavity, the bag closing mechanism actuatable to press the tubular film shut below the support of the waste disposal unit (see 25, Fig. 1)
Re. Cl. 15, Morand discloses: the annular body of the film-supporting cassette is seated on the support (see Fig. 1-2).
Re. Cl. 18, Morand discloses: the cover wall is welded, glued or mechanically retained to the annular body (see Fig. 3-4 in Morand 923)
Re. Cl. 19, Morand discloses: the tear-off portion covers a radial gap between a remainder of the cover and the outer annular wall of the annular body (see Fig. 2 in Morand 923).
Re. Cl. 1, Morand does not disclose the outlines each consisting of, in the transverse plane of the device, four rounded corners and two pairs of generally parallel segments on opposite sides of the central opening, two of the first diameter being maximum diameters between respective pairs of the four rounded corners across the central opening and two of the second diameter being minimum diameters between respective ones of the two pairs of generally parallel segments. Morand 923 does disclose that other shapes other than ovals can be used for the cassette (see Paragraph 0033, Lines 1-7). Dayton discloses a waste disposal system (Fig. 11a), a waste disposal unit (1104), a film supporting device (1102, 100, Fig. 11a and Fig. 1) removably mountable to the waste disposal unit (see Fig. 11a), wherein the film supporting device comprises a central opening and an outer wall (see annotated figure 1), outlines each consisting of in the transverse plane of the device, four rounded corners (see Fig. 1) and two pairs of generally parallel segments on opposite sides of the central opening (see Fig. 1, as being square as discussed in Paragraph 91 and shown as having the rounded corners in Fig. 1), two of the first diameter being maximum diameters between respective pairs of the four rounded corners across the central opening and two of the second diameter being minimum diameters between respective ones of the two pairs of generally parallel segments (see annotated figure 1, note only the outline of the central opening is shown but the outer wall has an identical shape and thus has the same dimensions). Re. Cl. 8, Dayton discloses the outline of the central opening is a squircle (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the cassette as disclosed by Morand to be shaped as disclosed by Dayton with reasonable expectation of success since Dayton states that such a modification facilitates storage by stacking and arranging the structures by placing multiple structures alongside one another in a storage cube (Paragraph 0091, Lines 13-20). Such a configuration would be desirable for shipping and/or storing the cassettes.
Re. Cl. 7, the combination of Morand in view of Dayton does not disclose that the outline of the central opening is a super-ellipse. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify the shape of opening from squircle to be a super-ellipse with reasonable expectation of success since the court held that the configuration of a claimed device was a matter of design choice of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In this instance, the Applicant has not provided criticality for the specific shapes since the Applicant discloses that shapes with outlines of A1>A2 (super-ellipse and squircle being three examples) all produce a greater amount of tubular film than cassettes without such outlines (see Paragraph 0039 and 0040). In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Claims 6, 20-21, 24, and 26-28 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morand in view of Dayton as applied above and in further view of Cudworth US 9108796 (hereinafter Cudworth).
Re. Cls. 6, 20-21, 24, and 26-28, Morand discloses an alternate holder (15) in the form of a horizontal flange surrounding the opening (15) on which the top portion (21) of the cassette (17) would rest (Paragraph 0029, Lines 13-15). Further, Morand 923 discloses a flange (see 152, Fig. 4 and discussed in Applicant’s Remarks dated 8/22/2022, Pages 7-10) is formed in and projects radially from the outer annular wall (see Fig. 4, and discussed by Applicant in the Remarks filed 8/22/2022 Pages 7-10), with an undersurface of the flange defining a shoulder for seating the annular body of the film-supporting device on the support (see Fig. 4 and discussed in Applicant’s Remarks dated 8/22/2022, by having the hook like configuration discussed); the flange is at a top edge of the outer annular wall (see annotated figure 4, the flange is located at and secured to a top edge outer annular wall 18); the outer annular wall extending straight from the bottom horizontal wall to the flange (see Fig. 3-4, the outer annular wall 118 extends straight vertically upward from the horizontal wall to the flange 152 as identified by the Applicant); and an outline of the flange on the outer annular wall matches the outline of the outer annular wall (see Fig. 3-4-2, by being attached to and extending from the outer annular wall entirely around the device, the flange would match the outline of the outer annular wall). Re. Cl. 24, Morand and Morand 923 does not disclose in explicit detail how the top portion of the cassette or the hook configuration shown in Fig. 4 and discussed by the Applicant in the Remarks dated 8/22/2022 specifically interacts with the support (i.e. showing it in the figures in detail). In other words, Morand and Morand 923 appear to refer to an equivalent if not identical configuration to what is claimed but does not show the specifics in great detail. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that Morand does not entirely disclose all of the details claimed. Cudworth discloses a film supporting device (see Fig. 20, created by 647, 648, 649, 624, 646 and 644) that an annular inner wall (647, Fig. 2), an annular outer wall (642, Fig. 20), a bottom horizontal wall (648, Fig. 20) and a flange formed in and projecting radially from the outer annular wall (see 644, Fig. 20), with an undersurface of the flange defining a shoulder for seating the film-supporting device (see Fig. 20, undersurface of 20 forms a shoulder for seating onto the supporting device 645), wherein the undersurface of the flange extends in a plane from the outer annular wall (see Fig. 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flange of Morand to extend in a plane from the outer annular wall and define a shoulder for seating onto a film-supporting device as disclosed by Cudworth since Cudworth states that such a modification forms a seat onto a top surface of a fixed portion of a cassette receiving chamber (Col. 11, Lines 1-5 and 18-20). Furthermore, it has been held obvious to replace one known method with another to achieve a predictable result and in this instance, it would have been obvious to replace the configurations of Morand with the flange configuration of Cudworth to achieve the predictable result of supporting the cassette on the receptacle. KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. ___, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR)
Re. Cl. 26, the combination discussed above discloses: an entirety of the film-supporting device is located below an upper end of the receptacle (see Fig. 1-2 of Moran, cassette 17 is below the top of receptacle), the flange located lower than the upper end of the receptacle in a space surrounded by the wall of the receptacle (see Fig. 1-2 of Morand pictures the cassette 17 located under ring 61, so therefore the support 15 and how it interacts with the cassette would remain under 61 and thus lower than an upper end of the receptacle).
Re. Cl. 27, the combination discussed above discloses: the flange projects radially from the outer annular wall without extending beyond the wall of the receptacle (see Fig. 1 of Morand, as shown the cassette 17 is located entirely within 1 and so is the support 15; by having the support be in the form of a flange which a flange from the cassette sits on, would have the flange still located within the walls of the receptacle 1).
Re. Cl. 28, the combination discussed above discloses: the outer annular wall of the film- supporting device is spaced from the wall of the receptacle (see Fig. 1 of Morand, the entirety of cassette 17 is spaced from walls 3-6 of the receptacle, so modifying the support to be a flange would still have the cassette positioned in the same spot).
Claim 29 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morand in view of Dayton in view of Cudworth as applied above, and in further view of Mowers US 2008/0272140 (hereinafter Mowers).
Re. Cl. 29, the combination of Morand in view of Dayton and Cudworth does not disclose that the outer annular wall of the film-supporting device tapers toward the bottom horizontal wall. Mowers discloses that it is known to have the outer annular wall of the film-supporting device taper towards the bottom horizontal wall (see Fig. 2, the outer annular wall where 22 points to tapers at 42 towards bottom wall where 30 points).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the outer annular wall of the Morand cassette to taper toward the bottom wall as disclosed by Mowers with reasonable expectation of success since Mowers states that such a modification enables stacking of cassettes while preventing shifting relative to one another (Abstract, Lines 11-16). Such a modification would again be particularly useful in storing the cassettes or shipping for instance.
Claim 9 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morand in view of Dayton as applied above, and further in view of Stravitz US 7712285 (hereinafter Stravitz).
Re. Cl. 9, the combination discussed above does not disclose wherein the cover wall has a plurality of through bores spaced apart along a circumference of the cover wall. Stravitz discloses a folding film dispensing cassette (94’ Fig. 13a) which includes a cover (112’) which has a plurality of through bores (140, Fig. 13a) spaced apart along a circumference of the cover wall (see Fig. 13a). The through bores forms a closing mechanism which can function to close up the cassette once the entire tubular film has been used (Col. 18, Lines 44-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the combined device to include the hinge and through bores of Stravitz since Stravitz states that such a modification would eliminate the need to tie the tubing when the length of available tubing is exhausted and or the pail is full which provides a sealing mechanism (Col. 17, Lines 50-54) and the holes are capable of being used to hold the cassette in a folded state (Col. 18, Lines 50-53).
Claim 10 and 14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morand in view of Morand as applied above, and further in view of Morand US 2009/0100806 (hereinafter Morand 806).
Re. Cl. 10, Morand does not disclose a clearance defined by a portion of the inner wall extending obliquely upward from a junction with the bottom horizontal wall, said portion of the inner annular wall joining with an upright portion of the inner annular wall whereby the clearance opens into the central opening (Cl. 10), the annular body film-supporting device comprises a clearance defined by a portion of the inner annular wall extending obliquely upward from a junction with the bottom horizontal wall, said portion of the inner annular wall joining with an upright portion of the inner annular wall whereby the clearance opens into the central opening (Cl. 14). Re. Cls. 10 and 14, Morand 806 discloses a cassette (30, Fig. 2a) which includes a clearance (41, Fig. 1 and 2a) defined by a portion of the inner wall extending obliquely upward from a junction with the bottom horizontal wall, said portion of the inner annular wall joining with an upright portion of the inner annular wall whereby the clearance opens into the central opening (see Fig. 2a-b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cassette of Morand to include the clearance of Morand 806 since Morand 806 discloses that such a modification ensures that the cassette is properly installed in the holder when in use (Paragraph 0037, Lines 18-22).
Claim 16 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morand in view of Dayton as applied above and in further view of Alvarez US 2006/0082085 (hereinafter Alvarez).
Re. Cl. 16, the combination discussed above does not disclose a pull tab projecting from a strip of the tear off portion. Alvarez discloses that it is known to use a pull tab (20) on a tear-off strip (18) which enables the user to easily remove the strip.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify the tear away strip of the combined device to include the tab as disclosed by Alvarez since Alvarez states that such a modification enables the user to easily remove the strip (Paragraph 0025, Lines 1-6).
Claim 17 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morand in view of Dayton as applied above and in further view of Chomik US 2003/0218022 (hereinafter Chomik).
Re. Cl. 17, Morand discloses that the tubular film may be multiple layer having an odor barrier therein such that odors do not permeate through the film (Paragraph 0028) but the combination discussed above does not disclose that the tubular film is an EVOH film. Chomik discloses a cassette (40, Fig. 1) which supports a tubular film (44, Fig. 1) which is an EVOH film (Paragraph 0039, Lines 15-19) to provide protection against odor detection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Morand device to use the EVOH film of Chomik with reasonable expectation of success since Morand is concerned with odor permeation but and Chomik states EVOH film provides protection against odor detection (Paragraph 0039, Lines 15-19).
Claim 30 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morand in view of Dayton as applied above and in further view of Lipscomb US 2011/0266817 (hereinafter Lipscomb).
Re. Cl. 30, Morand discloses a scooping tool (scoop in Paragraph 0033 of Morand 923) and the shape of the cassette generally conforms to the shape of the scoop. Morand does not explicitly disclose what the phrase “generally conforms” means so it is the Examiner’s position that there is insufficient evidence to support disclosure of the limitations the scooping tool having a width dimensions that is smaller than the first diameter (Cl. 30). Lipscomb discloses a waste disposal system which includes a waste disposal unit (58, Fig. 5) and a scooping tool (22), the scooping tool having a width dimensions that is smaller than the first diameter (see Fig. 5, the scooping tool’s width is far less than the dimensions of 58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined Morand in view of Dayton device to have the scoop as disclosed by Lipscomb with reasonable expectation of success since Lipscomb states that such a configuration helps keep the hand from contacting litter and pet waste during use (Paragraph 0026). Furthermore, the particular size discrepancy shown in Fig. 5 would be useful in preventing the litter from missing the central opening or potentially contaminating the cassette itself.
Claims 30-31 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morand in view of Dayton as applied above and in further view of Amerena US 2009/0001738 (hereinafter Amerena).
Re. Cl. 30, Morand discloses a scooping tool (scoop in Paragraph 0033 of Morand 923) and the shape of the cassette generally conforms to the shape of the scoop. Morand does not explicitly disclose what the phrase “generally conforms” means so it is the Examiner’s position that there is insufficient evidence to support disclosure of the limitations the scooping tool having a width dimensions that is smaller than the first diameter (Cl. 30) or the scooping tool has a scooping portion having a discharge end and an opposite closed end, the scooping portion delimited laterally by a curved wall extending on opposite sides of the discharge end towards the closed end, and a handle portion projecting from the closed end of the scooping portion away from the discharge end, the width dimension being taken in the scooping portion (Cl. 31). Amerena discloses a waste disposal system (Fig. 4) which includes a waste disposal unit (20, Fig. 4) and a scooping tool (Fig. 1-3), the scooping tool having a width dimensions that is smaller than the first diameter (see Fig. 4, the scooping tool’s width is far less than the dimensions of 20) and the scooping tool has a scooping portion (2, Fig. 2) having a discharge end (4, Fig. 2) and an opposite closed end (see Fig. 2, end closer to 9), the scooping portion delimited laterally by a curved wall (wall which extends around 8a and 8b, Fig. 1-3) extending on opposite sides of the discharge end towards the closed end (see Fig. 1-3), and a handle portion (9 and 14, Fig. 1-3) projecting from the closed end of the scooping portion away from the discharge end (see Fig. 1-3), the width dimension being taken in the scooping portion (see Fig. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined Morand in view of Dayton device to have the scoop as disclosed by Amerena with reasonable expectation of success since Amerena states that such a configuration enables the user to avoid contact with the litter which is great for individuals with asthma or allergies for example (Paragraph 0015). Furthermore, the particular size discrepancy shown in Fig. 5 would be useful in preventing the litter from missing the central opening or potentially contaminating the cassette itself.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re. Applicant’s argument that the Examiner’s rationale rests on a misreading of paragraph 0091 of Dayton, the Examiner disagrees. Applicant appears to misconstrue the motivation provided by the Examiner arguing that the collapsible feature of Dayton is what provides the advantage. The Examiner understands Paragraph 0091 to be referring to the collapsible nature of the sidewalls (110) would result in a device having a smaller vertical profile. However, Dayton states further that when they are collapsed, they “conform to a square” and storage of the box may be facilitated by arranging the collapsed structures. For example, multiple folded squares may be placed alongside one another in a storage cube (Paragraph 0091, Lines 13-20). In the storage configuration where the multiple folded squares are placed alongside one another, the shape, being square, would facilitate the storage as presented by the Examiner. Applicant further alleges that the storage configuration is not achieved by any structural features relative to the opening shape. However, the overall shape of the Dayton matches the internal opening shape (i.e. both being in the claimed shape) and therefore modifying the shape to be as guided by the Dayton disclosure and discussed above would result in the opening having Applicant’s claimed shape. Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this instance, the Examiner has not relied upon Applicant’s disclosure to form the combination of references since the motivation comes from the Dayton reference itself. Applicant’s argument is considered but is not persuasive.
Re. Applicant’s argument that Lipscomb is silent to a central opening of a film supporting device or of any diameter thereof, the Examiner disagrees. As can be seen in Fig. 5, the scooping tool is used to dispose of waste into a waste disposal unit or refuse container (58). It is the Examiner’s position that a waste disposal unit or refuse container is analogous to a film support cassette since both are used to dispose of waste. Further, the Examiner’s position is directly supported by the Moran disclosure which explicitly references the use of a scooping tool (scoop in Paragraph 0033 of Morand 923) with the cassette and that the shape of the cassette generally conforms to the shape of the scoop. Lipscomb further shows the comparative sizes of the refuse container and the scoop (see Fig. 5, the scooping tool’s width is far less than the dimensions of 58), which discloses the limitation claimed by the Applicant. Applicant argues that the Examiner’s comment on the size discrepancy is not found in Lipscomb, however the motivation to make such a modification does not have to come explicitly from the prior art per MPEP 2144. Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 31 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Burns US 2006/0156991 and Kowalczyk US 6039368 disclose other known litter scoops which are presented to the Applicant for their consideration.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER E GARFT whose telephone number is (571)270-1171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at (571)272-4797. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER GARFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights