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 .
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 1-3, 8-11, 14-18, 20, and 47-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemes et al. (US 20170089587 A1) (previously cited) in view of Park et al. (US 20180015688 A1) (previously cited), Schneider et al. (US 6333094 B1) (previously cited), Traser et al. (US 20170044698 A1) (previously cited), and Brown (US-20120067908-A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Nemes teaches a furniture article comprising: a top surface; sides surfaces coupled to the top surface; and a back surface panel coupled to the side surfaces and the top surface, wherein the top surface, side surfaces and back surface panel together form a user accessible interior storage area (Nemes, Fig. 1 – see annotated Fig 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
596
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nemes Figure 1 - Annotated
Nemes is silent regarding a porous core layer comprising a web of randomly arranged reinforcing fibers held together by a polyolefin thermoplastic material, wherein the back surface panel comprises a scrim on a second surface of the porous core layer.
Park teaches a porous core layer comprising a web of reinforcing fibers held together by a polyolefin thermoplastic material (Park, Par. 0006, 0052-0053, and 0065 – see “polyethylene” or “polypropylene”), wherein the porous core layer comprises a scrim on a surface of the porous core layer (Park, Par. 0007, 0010, 0021, 0024). Park teaches that the fibers may have any orientation depending on the desired properties (Park, Par. 0067). It is known in the art that fibers can be oriented in a finite number of ways such as unidirectional, bidirectional, multi-directional, and random. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try different orientations of the fibers, such as random, with a reasonable expectation of creating a core layer with reduced cost, reduced weight, and increased adhesion (Park, Par. 0004), see MPEP 2143.
Nemes and Park are analogous art as they both teach materials for furniture (Park Par. 0050). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the material for the porous core layer of Park, along with the skin layer of Park, to form the back surface (as per claim 1), or the side surface (as per claim 20) of the furniture article of Nemes. This would allow for reduced cost, reduced weight, and increased adhesion (Park, Par. 0004).
Modified Nemes is silent regarding a multi-layer film disposed on a first surface of the porous core layer, wherein the multi-layer film comprises an outer film layer, an adhesive layer, and a tie layer between the outer textured film layer and the adhesive layer, wherein the outer film layer of the multi-layer film is positioned on the exterior of the film, wherein the tie layer comprises a polyolefin material, wherein the adhesive layer of the multi-layer film bonds the multi-layer film to the porous core layer, and wherein the adhesive layer of the multi-layer film comprises a hot melt-adhesive polyurethane material, and wherein the multilayer film masks a surface roughness of the porous core layer produced from the reinforcing fibers in the porous core layer.
Schneider teaches a multi-layer film disposed on a core layer (Schneider Col. 8 Lines 11-22), wherein an outer film layer (coating) of the multi-layer film is positioned on the exterior (surface) of the film, and an adhesive layer bonds the multi-layer film to the core layer (Schneider, Col. 8 Lines 22-26). Schneider teaches the adhesive comprises a hot-melt adhesive based on polyurethane (Schneider, Col. 6 Lines 13-18). Schneider teaches that the multilayer film comprises a tie layer (base film) between the outer textured film layer and the adhesive layer, wherein the tie layer comprises a polyolefin material (polyethylene) (Schneider Col. 2 Lines 1-20, Col. 6 Line 19 – Col. 7 Line 44, and Fig. 2).
Modified Nemes and Schneider are analogous art as they both disclose materials for furniture articles. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have disposed Schneider’s multi-layer film onto the core layer of modified Nemes oriented such that the surface film layer of Schneider is on the exterior of the furniture article. This would improve the scratch resistance of the furniture article (Schneider, Col. 1 Lines 59-62) as well as allow for the furniture article to be decorative (Schneider, Col. 8 Lines 50-55). This would further result in a multilayer film covering a surface of the porous core layer which would mask a surface roughness of the porous core layer produced from the reinforcing fibers in the porous core layer to at least some degree, satisfying the claimed limitation.
Modified Nemes is silent regarding the hot melt adhesive polyurethane material having a melting temperature of 90-150 degrees Celsius.
Traser teaches a hot melt adhesive with a melting temperature of 145 degrees Celsius (Traser, abstract, Par. 0023, and 0025), which lies within the claimed range of 90-150 degrees Celsius, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03, I & II.
Modified Nemes and Traser are analogous art as they both teach hot melt adhesives used for furniture articles (Schneider, Col. 6, Lines 13-18, and Traser, abstract, Par. 0003, 0023, 0025, 0103). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Traser’s hot-melt adhesive for modified Nemes hot-melt adhesive. This would lower the fusing temperature which would save cost and resources (Traser, Par. 0025).
Modified Nemes is silent regarding the outer layer of the multilayer film being an outer textured film layer comprising a polyolefin thermoplastic material.
Brown teaches a material for furniture articles (Brown, Abstract and Par. 0027-0032), wherein the material comprises an outer textured film layer (coating) (Brown, Par. 0028-0029, 0040, 0055, and 0090 – see “rough”). Brown teaches that the outer textured film layer comprises a polyolefin thermoplastic material (Brown, Par. 0039, 0051, 0055, 0078, and 0128-0130 – see “polyolefin” and “polyethylene”). Brown teaches that outer textured film layer (coating) can be included on top of an additional coating (Brown. Par. 0039, 0051, 0055, 0078, and 0128-0130).
Modified Nemes and Brown are analogous art as they both teach furniture articles comprising an outer coating. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the outer textured layer of Brown as the outer layer coating of modified Nemes or, alternatively, add Brown’s outer textured layer to the multilayer film of modified Nemes. This would allow for a durable and weatherable hydrophobic surface with a strong bond interface for a furniture article (Brown, Par. 0027-0028, 0048, 0051, and 0055).
Regarding the limitation of the back surface panel being cellulose free, the porous core layer and scrim relied upon from Park are made completely from thermoplastic materials, such as polyethylene, and glass fibers (Park, Par. 0006, 0065, 0067) which are cellulose free. Schneider’s multi-layer veneer doesn’t comprise wood/cellulosic materials. Although it is designed to be adhered to wood, it can also be adhered to other base materials such as plasterboard and metal (Schneider, Col 2 Lines 41-46). Further, only the multilayer material of Schneider is used in the rejection above. Also, the outer textured film of Brown need not contain wood or cellulose, and therefore does not comprise cellulose. In view of the foregoing, the back surface panel of modified Nemes as stated above does not comprise cellulose.
Regarding claim 2, modified Nemes teaches that the porous core layer comprises 20% to 90% by weight reinforcing fibers and 20% to 80% by weight polyolefin thermoplastic material (Park, Par. 0065 and 0067). Park’s reinforcing fibers composition range of 20%-90% by weight encompasses the claimed range of 20%-80% by weight and thus establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I. Park’s thermoplastic material composition range is identical to the claimed range, and therefore, completely satisfies the claimed range (see MPEP 2131.03)
Regarding claim 3, modified Nemes teaches that the reinforcing fibers of the porous core layer comprise glass fibers (Park, Par. 0067) and the polyolefin thermoplastic material of the porous core layer comprises polypropylene (Park, Par. 0006, 0052-0053, and 0065 - See "polyethylene").
Regarding claim 8, modified Nemes teaches that the exterior surface of the back surface panel comprises a surface energy of 22 dynes/cm (22 mN/m) (Nemes, Par. 0055), which lies within the claimed range of less than 30 mN/m, and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 9, modified Nemes teaches that the multilayer film comprising least 4 layers, at least one base film, at least one polyester containing film, and at least 2 bonding or adhesive layers (Schneider, Col. 2 Line 65 to Col. 3 Line 16). Schneider teaches that the at least one base film has a thickness ranging from 100 µm to 500 µm (Schneider, Col. 2, Lines 65-68), the at least one polyester containing film has a thickness of 20 µm to 250 µm (Schneider, Col. 5 Line 66 – Col. 6 Line 8), and each bonding or adhesive layer has a thickness of 30 µm to 200 µm (Schneider, Col 6 Lines 13-18). This results in a total multilayer film thickness of 180 µm to 1100 µm (.18 mm – 1.1mm), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.1 mm to 0.2 mm, and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 10, modified Nemes teaches the multilayer film comprises a first layer (outer textured film/coating layer), a second layer (the adhesive layer), and a third layer which comprises three sub layers (the polyester layer, the intermediate bonding layer, and the tie layer/base film layer), and thus teaches the multilayer film is a tri-layer film (Schneider Col. 2 Lines 1-20, Col. 6 Line 19 – Col. 7 Line 44, Col. 8 Lines 11-26, and Fig. 2). Modified Nemes teaches the tie layer comprises a polyolefin material (polyethylene) (Schneider Col. 2 Lines 1-20, Col. 6 Line 19 – Col. 7 Line 44, and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, modified Nemes teaches that the furniture article is configured to receive at least one drawer (Nemes, Fig. 1, and Par. 0067).
Regarding claim 14, modified Nemes teaches that the multilayer film has a total thickness of 0.18 mm – 1.1 mm as discussed above for claim 9 (Schneider, Col. 2, Line 65 Col. 3 Line 16 and Col. 5 Line 66 – Col. 6 Line 18). Modified Nemes teaches the core layer has a thickness less than 2.25 mm (Park, Par. 0095, and table 2 - see Example 3). This results in a back surface with a thickness of more than 0.18 mm to less than or equal to 3.35 mm which lies within the claimed range of less than 4 mm, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03, I & II. Modified Nemes teaches the core layer comprises a basis weight of less than 900 gsm (Park, Par. 0081, 0090, 0092 - see GMT). One of ordinary skill in the art would not deviate from the basis weight requirements set forth by Park when applying the additional multilayer film of Schneider, and therefore, modified Nemes is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the claim 14 basis weight limitations, see MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 15, modified Nemes teaches that the porous core layer comprises polypropylene as the polyolefin thermoplastic material (Park, Par. 0006, 0052-0053, and 0065).
Regarding claim 16, modified Nemes teaches that the multi-layer film comprises at least four layers (the base layer, a polyester layer, and two adhesive/bonding layers), wherein the tie layer (base layer) comprises polyethylene (Schneider Col. 2 Lines 1-20, Col. 6 Line 19 – Col. 7 Line 44, Col. 8 Lines 11-26, and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, modified Nemes further teaches that the outer textured film comprises a filler (roughening agent) (Brown, Par. 0039, 0051, 0055, 0078, 0090, and 0129-0130).
Regarding claim 18, modified Nemes teaches the multilayer film comprises a first layer (outer textured film/coating layer), a second layer (a polyester layer), a third layer (the intermediate bonding layer) and a fourth layer which comprises two sub layers (the tie layer/base film layer and the adhesive layer), and thus teaches the multilayer film is a tetra-layer film (Schneider Col. 2 Lines 1-20, Col. 6 Line 19 – Col. 7 Line 44, Col. 8 Lines 11-26, and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 47, modified Nemes teaches that the porous core layer of the back surface panel comprises reinforcing glass fibers, a polypropylene thermoplastic material, and a hydroxide material (calcium hydroxide) (Park, Par. 0079). Modified Nemes teaches that the multilayer film comprising least 4 layers, at least one base film, at least one polyester containing film, and at least 2 bonding or adhesive layers (Schneider, Col. 2 Line 65 to Col. 3 Line 16). Modified Nemes teaches that the at least one base film has a thickness ranging from 100 µm to 500 µm (Schneider, Col. 2, Lines 65-68), the at least one polyester containing film has a thickness of 20 µm to 250 µm (Schneider, Col. 5 Line 66 – Col. 6 Line 8), and each bonding or adhesive layer has a thickness of 30 µm to 200 µm (Schneider, Col 6 Lines 13-18). This results in a total multilayer film thickness of 180 µm to 1100 µm (.18 mm – 1.1mm), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.1 mm to 0.2 mm, and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I. Modified Nemes teaches that the multilayer film comprises a tie layer (bonding layer) an adhesive layer and the outer textured layer (Schneider Col. 2 Line 14, Col. 8 Lines 5-10, Col. 7 Lines 51-54, Col. 8 Lines 26-27, and Fig. 5). Modified Nemes teaches that the outer textured film layer comprises a polyethylene (Brown, Par. 0039, 0051, 0055, 0078, and 0129-0130 – see “polyolefin” and “polyethylene”). Modified Nemes teaches that the core layer comprises a basis weight of less than 900 gsm (Park, Par. Par. 0081, 0090, 0092 - see GMT). One of ordinary skill in the art would not deviate from the basis weight requirements set forth by Park when applying the additional multilayer film of Schneider, and therefore, modified Nemes is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the claim 47 basis weight limitations, see MPEP 2143. Modified Nemes teaches that the multilayer film has a total thickness of 0.18 mm – 1.1 mm as discussed (Schneider, Col. 2, Line 65 Col. 3 Line 16 and Col. 5 Line 66 – Col. 6 Line 18). Modified Nemes teaches the core layer has a thickness less than 2.25 mm (Park, Par. 0095, and table 2 - see Example 3). This results in a back surface with a thickness of more than 0.18 mm to less than or equal to 3.35 mm which lies within the claimed range of less than 4 mm, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03, I & II.
Regarding claim 48, modified Nemes teaches a surface of the porous core layer adjacent the multi-layer film is textured (Park, Par. 0079).
Regarding claim 49, modified Nemes teaches the outer textured film has a rough surface and can comprise a pattern of features (Nemes, Par. 0096, 0152) and thus forms a texture having depressions of different sized and depths, forming a non-uniform texture across of surface of the back panel of the furniture article.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemes et al. in view of Park et al., Schneider et al., Traser et al. and Brown as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Percy (US 20170342227 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Nemes teaches the furniture article as stated above for claim 1. Modified Nemes teaches the multilayer film comprising at least 4 layers, at least one base film, at least one polyester containing film, and at least 2 bonding or adhesive layers (Schneider, Col. 2 Line 65 to Col. 3 Line 16). Modified Nemes teaches that the at least one base film has a thickness ranging from 100 µm to 500 µm (Schneider, Col. 2, Lines 65-68), the at least one polyester containing film has a thickness of 20 µm to 250 µm (Schneider, Col. 5 Line 66 – Col. 6 Line 8), and each bonding or adhesive layer has a thickness of 30 µm to 200 µm (Schneider, Col 6 Lines 13-18). This results in a total multilayer film thickness of 180 µm to 1100 µm (.18 mm – 1.1mm), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.1 mm to 0.2 mm, and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I. Modified Nemes teaches that the core layer comprises glass fibers and polypropylene (Park, Par. 0006).
Modified Nemes is silent regarding the exterior surface of the back surface panel comprises a surface roughness of less than 12 microns in the machine direction and less than 17 microns in the cross direction as tested using a stylus profilometer; an RMS roughness of less than 15 microns in the machine direction and less than 20 microns in the cross direction; or a maximum roughness of less than 90 microns in the machine direction and less than 125 microns in the cross.
Percy teaches a coating layer with a surface roughness RA of 1.2 microns or less (Percy, Par. 0069 and 0070). Percy’s roughness range is completely encompassed with the claimed ranges of a surface roughness of less than 12 microns in the machine direction and less than 17 microns in the cross direction as tested using a stylus profilometer; an RMS roughness of less than 15 microns in the machine direction and less than 20 microns in the cross direction; and a maximum roughness of less than 90 microns in the machine direction and less than 125 microns in the cross direction, and therefore, completely satisfies the claimed ranges, see MPEP 2131.03, I & II.
Modified Nemes and Percy are analogous art as they both disclose multilayer films comprising composites and a coating layer (Schneider, abstract, Col. 1 Lines 5-10, Col. 3 Lines 36-38 and Percy, abstract). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the coating method teachings of Percy to form modified Nemes’ exterior surface-coating layer to achieve an exterior that exhibits a surface roughness of 1.2 microns or less. This would yield a furniture article possessing a uniform exterior coating thickness, a low surface roughness, high adhesion properties, and lower risk of delamination (Percy, Par. 0014, 0069, 0109).
Regarding claims 5-7, modified Nemes teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 1.
Modified Nemes is silent regarding the exterior surface of the back surface panel comprises a surface roughness of less than 12 microns in the machine direction and less than 17 microns in the cross direction as tested using a stylus profilometer (as required by claim 5); an RMS roughness of less than 15 microns in the machine direction and less than 20 microns in the cross direction (as required by claim 6); or a maximum roughness of less than 90 microns in the machine direction and less than 125 microns in the cross direction (as required by claim 7).
Percy teaches a coating layer with a surface roughness RA of 1.2 microns or less (Percy, Par. 0069 and 0070). Percy’s roughness range is completely encompassed with the claimed ranges of a surface roughness of less than 12 microns in the machine direction and less than 17 microns in the cross direction as tested using a stylus profilometer (as required by claim 5); an RMS roughness of less than 15 microns in the machine direction and less than 20 microns in the cross direction (as required by claim 6); and a maximum roughness of less than 90 microns in the machine direction and less than 125 microns in the cross direction (as required by claim 7), and therefore, completely satisfies the claimed ranges, see MPEP 2131.03, I & II.
Modified Nemes and Percy are analogous art as they both disclose multilayer films comprising composites and a coating layer (Schneider, abstract, Col. 1 Lines 5-10, Col. 3 Lines 36-38 and Percy, abstract). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the coating method teachings of Percy to form modified Nemes’ exterior surface-coating layer to achieve an exterior that exhibits a surface roughness of 1.2 microns or less. This would yield a furniture article possessing a uniform exterior coating thickness, a low surface roughness, high adhesion properties, and lower risk of delamination (Percy, Par. 0014, 0069, 0109).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed 26 January 2026 have been fully considered.
On page 7 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the base layer of Schneider is different than the claimed adhesive layer. This is not found persuasive for the following reason:
To note, the grounds of rejection have been updated above in view of the present claim amendments. In the grounds of rejection above the base film layer of Schneider is not relied upon to teach the claimed adhesive layer. Instead, the adhesive layer of Schneider is utilized to teach the claimed adhesive layer. Therefore, Schneider teaches the claimed adhesive layer and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Secondly, on pages 7-8 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Schneider teaches at least 5 layers and thus does not teach that the multilayer film is a tri-layer or tetra-layer film as required by claims 10 and 18. This is not found persuasive for the following reason:
Schneider teaches a layer structure of at least the layers coating/polyester layer/intermediate bonding layer/base film/adhesive (Schneider, Col 2 Lines 1-21 and Fig. 2). The coating layer can be considered a first layer; the polyester layer, intermediate bonding layer, and base film can be considered a second layer that has 3 sub layers; and the adhesive can be considered a third layer, and thus Schneider teaches a tri-layer film, satisfying the claim 10 limitation. Furthermore, the coating can be considered a first layer; the polyester layer and intermediate bonding layer can be considered a second layer that has 2 sub layers; the base film can be considered a third layer; and the adhesive layer can be considered the fourth layer and thus Schneider teaches a tetra-layer film, satisfying the claim 18 limitation. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Thirdly, on pages 8-9 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Percy teaches different materials than the claimed material and thus does not render obvious the claimed roughness. This is not found persuasive for the following reason:
Percy teaches forming a coating layer with a surface roughness RA of 1.2 microns or less (Percy, Par. 0069 and 0070). Percy’s roughness range is completely encompassed with the claimed ranges of a surface roughness of less than 12 microns in the machine direction and less than 17 microns in the cross direction as tested using a stylus profilometer; an RMS roughness of less than 15 microns in the machine direction and less than 20 microns in the cross direction; and a maximum roughness of less than 90 microns in the machine direction and less than 125 microns in the cross direction, and therefore, completely satisfies the claimed ranges, see MPEP 2131.03, I & II. Percy further provides motivation for creating a coating with the claimed thickness such as forming a furniture article possessing a uniform exterior coating thickness, a low surface roughness, high adhesion properties, and lower risk of delamination (Percy, Par. 0014, 0069, 0109). Nothing in Percy of Nemes indicates that a coating made of the claimed materials would not be capable of being formed to have the claimed roughness. Therefore, modified Nemes renders obvious the claimed roughness and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Fourthly, on page 9 of the remarks, Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not use a hot melt adhesive like that taught by Traser in a multilayer film. This is not found persuasive for the following reason:
Schneider teaches an adhesive layer that comprises a hot-melt adhesive formed from polyurethane as stated in the grounds of rejection above (Schneider, Col. 6 Lines 13-18). Therefore, Schneider already teaches including a hot melt adhesive in the multi-layer film. Meanwhile, Traser is utilized to render obvious utilizing a hot melt adhesive with a specific melting temperature as stated above. Nothing in Schneider nor Traser indicate that the specific hot melt adhesive of Traser could not be utilized in the multilayer film of Schneider. Applicant merely makes a conclusory statement that one of ordinary skill in the art would not use the hot melt adhesive in the multilayer film but does not provide objective rationale or evidence as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would not include the adhesive in the multilayer film. Therefore, modified Nemes renders obvious the claimed adhesive layer and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
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 THOMAS J KESSLER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3075. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Th.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/THOMAS J KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1782