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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 16, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyodo et al. US 2019/0071195 in view of Garcia Torres US 5,657,685, Mirkhaef et al. US 2019/0352028, Wartman et al. US 10,159,258, Fischl US 2017/0050331, McDonald et al. US 2018/0259092, Buchko US 2007/0214752, Frehn et al. US 2014/0324607, McMaster et al. US 2004/0074401, and Lindee US 2010/0101191.
Regarding Claim 1, Hyodo et al. discloses an automated sandwich assembly method (‘195, Paragraphs [0112]-[0113]). The method comprises moving a top portion (top slice of bread S1) and a bottom portion (bottom slice of bread S1) of a bread (bread S1) via an automated conveyor (conveyors 3) (‘195, Paragraphs [0043] and [0056]) towards an automated picker robot (sorting manipulator 51) (‘195, Paragraph [0048]). One or more inputs (food substances S2) are added to the second portion (bottom slice of bread S1) of the bread (bread S1) (‘195, Paragraph [0056] and [0112]) wherein the one or more inputs (food substances S2) comprise sandwich components to create an assembled sandwich (sandwich S) (‘195, Paragraph [0112]) and the top portion (top slice of bread S1) and the bottom portion (bottom slice of bread S1) with the plurality of inputs (food substances S2) positioned therebetween to assemble the assembled sandwich (‘195, Paragraphs [0056] and [0100]). The assembled sandwich (sandwich S) is moved to an automated packaging system (packager 4) via the automated conveyor (conveyors 3) and the assembled sandwich is packaged via the automated packaging system (packager 4) (‘195, Paragraphs [0111]-[0112]).
Hyodo et al. is silent regarding the top portion of the top slice of bread and the bottom portion of the bottom slice of bread being sliced with an automated slicer, the automated conveyor having a first conveying member that moves the top portion and the bottom portion of the sliced piece of bread, slicing the one or more inputs for the piece of bread at input stations and loading the sliced one or more inputs on a second conveying member of the automated conveyor, moving the one or more inputs via the second conveying member wherein the one or more inputs are added to the second conveying member sequentially to receive amounts of inputs from each of the input stations before reaching the automated picker robot, and moving the assembled sandwich via the first conveying member to the automated packaging system.
Garcia Torres discloses an automated sandwich assembly method (‘685, Column 1, lines 8-20). The method comprises slicing with an automated slicer a piece of bread (loaves 13) into a top portion (top slice 14) and a bottom portion (bottom slice 14) at input stations (cutting stations) (‘685, Column 2, lines 63-67), and moving the top portion (top slice 14) and the bottom portion (bottom slice 14) of the bread via an automated conveyor (conveyor belt 15) (‘685, Column 1, lines 22-24) (‘685, Column 6, lines 1-15).
Both Hyodo et al. and Garcia Torres are directed towards the same field of endeavor of automated sandwich assembly methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Hyodo et al. and make the two slices of bread of the sandwich by slicing with an automated slicer a piece of bread into a top portion and a bottom portion as taught by Garcia Torres since providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity of slicing one larger piece of bread into two smaller pieces of a piece of bread having a top portion and a bottom portion which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art in view of In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (MPEP § 2144.04.III.).
Further regarding Claim 1, Hyodo et al. modified with Garcia Torres is silent regarding moving the one or more inputs via a first conveying member of the automated conveyor, loading the sliced one or more inputs on a second conveying member of the automated conveyor, moving the one or more inputs via the second conveying member wherein the one or more inputs are added to the second conveying member sequentially, adding the one or more inputs with the automated picker robot, and moving the assembled sandwich via the first conveying member.
Mirkhaef et al. discloses an automated sandwich assembly method (system 200) (‘028, Paragraph [0054]) comprising adding one or more inputs (meat 10) to a bottom portion (bottom bun 14) of a sandwich (sandwich 12) with an automated picker robot (robotic arm 102) wherein the one or more inputs (meat 10) comprise sandwich components to create an assembled sandwich (sandwich 12), moving the assembled sandwich (sandwich 12) to an automated packaging system (wrapping assist device 204), and packaging the assembled sandwich (sandwich 12) via the automated packaging system (wrapping assist device 204) (‘028, Paragraphs [0066]-[0069]).
Both Hyodo et al. and Mirkhaef et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of making a sandwich using an automated sandwich assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Hyodo et al. and use an automated picker robot to add the one or more inputs in the form of meat to the bottom portion of the bread as taught by Mirkhaef et al. since providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity of placing one or more inputs on the bottom portion of the bread using an automated picker robot which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art in view of In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (MPEP § 2144.04.III.).
Further regarding Claim 1, Hyodo et al. modified with Garcia Torres and Mirkhaef et al. is silent regarding the sandwich being a submarine sandwich, moving the one or more inputs via a first conveying member of the automated conveyor, loading the sliced one or more inputs on a second conveying member of the automated conveyor, moving the one or more inputs via the second conveying member wherein the one or more inputs are added to the second conveying member sequentially, and moving the assembled sandwich via the first conveying member.
Wartman et al. discloses an automated submarine sandwich assembly method (‘258, Column 1, lines 19-23) comprising slicing a piece of bread into a top portion and a bottom portion with a slicer (cutter 34) (‘258, Column 4, lines 47-48), moving the top portion and the bottom portion of the bread via an automated conveyor (conveyor belt 20) (‘258, Column 4, lines 5-16), and moving the assembled sandwich to an automated packaging system and packaging (wrapping) the assembled sandwich via the automated packaging system (‘258, Column 4, lines 47-48).
Both Hyodo et al. and Wartman et al. are directed towards methods of automatically making sandwiches. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Hyodo et al. and use the method of make a submarine sandwich as taught by Wartman et al. based upon the particular type and dimensions of sandwich desired to be made by a particular consumer.
Further regarding Claim 1, Hyodo et al. modified with Garcia Torres, Mirkhaef et al., and Wartman et al. is silent regarding moving the one or more inputs via a first conveying member of the automated conveyor, loading the sliced one or more inputs on a second conveying member of the automated conveyor, moving the one or more inputs via the second conveying member wherein the one or more inputs are added to the second conveying member sequentially, and moving the assembled sandwich via the first conveying member.
Fischl discloses a method for slicing one or more inputs (one or more food products) (‘331, Paragraph [0001]) wherein the one or more inputs (one or more food products) are moved via a conveyor (conveyor belt 4) (‘311, Paragraph [0030]). Fischl further discloses the one or more inputs (one or more food products) being added to the conveyor (conveyor belt 4) sequentially to receive amounts of inputs (food products) from each of the input stations (the tracks can be loaded one after another) (‘331, Paragraph [0013]) before reaching the automated picker robot (grippers) (‘331, Paragraph [0004]).
Both modified Hyodo et al. and Fischl are directed towards the same field of endeavor of processing food products using a slicer and moving the food products via a conveyor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Hyodo et al. and add the one or more food product inputs of modified Hyodo et al. to the conveyor sequentially to receive amounts of inputs from each of the input stations before reaching the automated picker robot since Fischl teaches that it was known and conventional in the food conveyor art to add one or more food product inputs to the conveyor sequentially. Furthermore, the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results in view of In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.C.).
Further regarding Claim 1, Hyodo et al. modified with Garcia Torres, Mirkhaef et al., Wartman et al., and Fischl et al. is silent regarding moving the one or more inputs via a first conveying member of the automated conveyor, loading the sliced one or more inputs on a second conveying member of the automated conveyor, moving the one or more inputs via the second conveying member, and moving the assembled sandwich via the first conveying member.
McDonald et al. discloses an apparatus and method of vacuumizing and sealing a food package (‘092, Paragraph [0001]) wherein the apparatus comprises a conveying mechanism for conveying a plurality of conveying members (platens) around a single axis of rotation (‘092, Paragraph [0009]). Additionally, Buchko discloses a conveyor including a series of conveying members (platens( adapted to receive a vacuum packaged food product (‘752, Paragraphs [0053] and [0116]).
Hyodo et al. discloses the automated food processing method comprising using any conveyance system (‘195, Paragraph [0045]). Modified Hyodo et al., McDonald et al., and Buchko are all directed towards the same field of endeavor of automated food assembly methods for processing foods using automated conveyors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Hyodo et al. that uses any conveyance system and incorporate a first conveying member and a second conveying member in the form of a first platen and a second platen to the automated conveyor for moving pieces of food to different locations of the food assembly apparatus since McDonald et al. and Buchko teaches that it was known and conventional in the automated food assembly art to incorporate platens on an automated conveyor for moving food items on the conveyor to different locations of the automated food apparatus. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Hyodo et al. and incorporate a first conveying member and a second conveying member in the form of a first platen and a second platen on the automated conveyor as taught by McDonald et al. and Buchko since the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced in view of In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B.). McDonald et al. and Buchko teaches that there was known utility in the food packaging art to incorporate a plurality of platens onto a conveyor system that moves food items. Additionally, loading packages onto platens avoids manual loading of packages (‘092, Paragraph [0007]).
Further regarding Claim 1, Hyodo et al. modified with Garcia Torres, Mirkhaef et al., Wartman et al., Fischl et al., McDonald et al., and Buchko is silent regarding adding with the picker robot one or more condiments into the packaging of the assembled sandwich to create a packaged sandwich and condiments and packaging via the automated system the assembled sandwich by gas flushing, sealing, and labeling the packaged sandwich.
Frehn et al. discloses a method of delivering a custom sandwich to a patron comprising the steps of using a robotic sandwich assembly apparatus including a topping dispenser and a condiment dispenser configured to selectively dispense specific quantities of condiments onto a bun and the robotic sandwich assembly apparatus includes a bagging, boxing, or plating assembly configured to place a completed burger in a packaging for delivery (‘607, Paragraph [0012]).
Both modified Hyodo et al. and Frehn et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of automated sandwich assembly methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Hyodo et al. and add with the picker robot one or more condiments into the packaging of the assembled sandwich to create a packaged sandwich and condiments as taught by Frehn et al. in order to automatically dispense the desired condiments onto the sandwich since providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity ofadding with the picker robot one or more condiments as desired into the packaging using an automated picker robot which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art in view of In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (MPEP § 2144.04.III.). It is noted that the claim does not require the one or more condiments to be separately packaged from the assembled sandwich.
Further regarding Claim 1, Hyodo et al. modified with Garcia Torres, Mirkhaef et al., Wartman et al., Fischl et al., McDonald et al., Buchko , and Frehn et al. is silent regarding packaging via the automated system the assembled sandwich by gas flushing, sealing, and labeling the packaged sandwich.
McMaster et al. discloses a method and apparatus used in the production of meals using substantially automatic means (‘401, Paragraph [0002]) comprising the step of flushing the packages before sealing with nitrogen and carbon dioxide gas to result in a substantially longer shelf life to create substantially aseptic conditions in which the process is almost wholly automated by removing human contact with the food in every state except for the preparatory process (‘401, Paragraph [0066]) wherein the sterilized trays are labeled with a labeler (‘401, Paragraph [0153]).
Both modified Hyodo et al. and McMaster et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of automated food packaging methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Hyodo et al. and package via the automated system the assembled sandwich by gas flushing, sealing, and labeling the packaged sandwich as taught by McMaster et al. in order to increase the shelf life of the food package by almost wholly automating and removing human contact with the food and by flushing the packages before sealing (‘401, Paragraph [0066]). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the process of modified Hyodo et al. and label the food package as taught by McMaster et al. in order to easily identify the contents of the food package.
Further regarding Claim 1, Hyodo et al. modified with Garcia Torres, Mirkhaef et al., Wartman et al., Fischl et al., McDonald et al., Buchko , Frehn et al., and McMaster et al. is silent regarding the packaging comprising placing the assembled sandwich into a preformed pocket.
Lindee discloses a system for handling food products from an apparatus that slices or forms the food product (‘191, Paragraph [0002]) wherein a shuttle robot delivers food products from an upstream main conveyor into containers formed in a group of rows of pockets formed in a lower web of film by the packaging machine wherein the containers or pockets that are filled with food product are sealed by an upper web of film in a sealing station (‘191, Paragraph [0039]).
Both modified Hyodo et al. and Lindee are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of packaging food using robotic arms. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Hyodo et al. and place the assembled sandwich into a preformed pocket since Lindee teaches that it was known in the food packaging art to fill containers or pockets with food product and sealing therein.
Regarding Claims 3-4, Mirkhaef et al. discloses combining the top portion (top bun 16) of the bread on the bottom portion (bottom bun 14) of the bread and the one or more inputs (meat 10) to assemble the assembled sandwich (sandwich 12) before moving the assembled sandwich (sandwich 12) to the automated packaging system (wrapping assist device 204) wherein the step of combining the top portion (top bun 16) of the bread on the bottom portion (bottom bun 14) and the one or more inputs (meat 10) comprises using an automated picker robot (robotic arm 202) to pick the top portion (top bun 16) of the bread and to place on the bottom portion (bottom bun 14) and the one or more inputs (meat 10) (‘028, Paragraphs [0068]-[0069]). Hyodo et al. discloses sensing with one or more sensors (weight sensor 57), a quality control of the assemble sandwich (sandwich S) before moving the assembled sandwich to the automated packaging system (‘195, Paragraph [0048]). Both Hyodo et al. and Mirkhaef et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of making a sandwich using an automated sandwich assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Hyodo et al. and use an automated picker robot to pick the top portion of the bread and place on the bottom portion and the one or more inputs to assemble the sandwich before moving the assembled sandwich to the automated packaging system as taught by Mirkhaef et al. since providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity of placing one or more inputs on the bottom portion of the bread using an automated picker robot which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art in view of In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (MPEP § 2144.04.III.).
Regarding Claim 5, Hyodo et al. discloses redirecting a rejected assembled sandwich (sandwich S) that does not meet the quality control (acceptable sandwich weight range) sensed by the one or more sensors (weight sensor 57) to a reject line (disposal site) that bypasses the automated packaging system (‘195, Paragraph [0048]).
Regarding Claim 11, Hyodo et al. discloses the one or more inputs (food substance S2) comprising meats and vegetables (‘195, Paragraph [0056]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyodo et al. US 2019/0071195 in view of Garcia Torres US 5,657,685, Mirkhaef et al. US 2019/0352028, Wartman et al. US 10,159,258, Fischl US 2017/0050331, McDonald et al. US 2018/0259092, Buchko US 2007/0214752, Frehn et al. US 2014/0324607, McMaster et al. US 2004/0074401, and Lindee US 2010/0101191 as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Kabumoto et al. US 2010/0202694 and Bailey et al. US 2013/0097975.
Regarding Claim 6, McDonald et al. discloses the conveyors containing a conveying member (platen) (‘092, Paragraph [0007]). Hyodo et al. modified with Garcia Torres, Mirkhaef et al., Wartman et al., Fischl, McDonald et al., Buchko, Frehn et al., McMaster et al., and Lindee is silent regarding sensing a quality control of the assembled sandwich before moving the assembled sandwich to the automated packaging system with one or more sensors and reintroducing the rejected assembled sandwich to the automated conveyor after the quality has been corrected.
Kabumoto et al. discloses a quality control of food products before moving the food products to the automated packaging system (sealed bags) (‘694, Paragraph [0089]) with one or more sensors (‘694, Paragraph [0133]) and redirecting a rejected assembled sandwich that does not meet the quality control sensed by the sensor to a reject line (defective product storage conveyor 90) that bypasses the automated packaging system (via regular line conveyor 80) (‘694, Paragraphs [0065]-[0066]). Bailey et al. discloses a vision inspection system for quality control inspection of an object prior to packaging the object wherein any packages not meeting inspection requirements are automatically removed from the system for reprocessing (‘975, Paragraph [0018]).
Both modified Hyodo et al. and Kabumoto et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of food packaging methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Hyodo et al. and conduct a quality control of the assembled sandwich before moving the assembled sandwich to the automated packaging system with one or more sensors and redirecting a rejected assembled sandwich that does not meet the quality control sensed by the sensor to a reject line that bypasses the automated packaging system in order to only package quality sandwiches and to prevent packaging defective sandwiches. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Hyodo et al. and redirect a rejected sandwich that does not meet quality control to a reject line and reintroduce the rejected assembled sandwich to the automated conveyor after the quality has been corrected since Bailey et al. teaches that reprocessing any object that does not meet quality controls was known in the inspection art. One of ordinary skill in the art would reprocess any rejected quality objects in order to fix the defects of the sandwich of the Hyodo et al. prior to packaging.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyodo et al. US 2019/0071195 in view of Garcia Torres US 5,657,685, Mirkhaef et al. US 2019/0352028, Wartman et al. US 10,159,258, Fischl US 2017/0050331, McDonald et al. US 2018/0259092, Buchko US 2007/0214752, Frehn et al. US 2014/0324607, McMaster et al. US 2004/0074401, and Lindee US 2010/0101191 as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Robertson US 2016/0242423.
Regarding Claim 7, Hyodo et al. modified with Garcia Torres, Mirkhaef et al., Wartman et al., Fischl, McDonald et al., Buchko, Frehn et al., McMaster et al., and Lindee is silent regarding the automated slicer comprising an ultrasonic bread slicer.
Robertson discloses a method of automatically cutting food (dough) using an ultrasonic bread slicer (‘423, Paragraph [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Hyodo et al. and use an ultrasonic bread slicer as taught by Robertson in order to prevent the food from sticking to the cutting mechanism (‘423, Paragraph [0024]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyodo et al. US 2019/0071195 in view of Garcia Torres US 5,657,685, Mirkhaef et al. US 2019/0352028, Wartman et al. US 10,159,258, Fischl US 2017/0050331, McDonald et al. US 2018/0259092, Buchko US 2007/0214752, Frehn et al. US 2014/0324607, McMaster et al. US 2004/0074401, and Lindee US 2010/0101191 as applied to claim 9 above in further view of Magnusson et al. US 2020/0017287 and Kong et al. US 2016/0251101.
Regarding Claim 10, Mirkhaef et al. discloses placing the packaged sandwich (sandwich 12) into a container (wrapper 20) with an automated picker robot (robotic arm 202) (‘028, Paragraph [0066]). Frehn et al. discloses a packaged sandwich comprising an assembled sandwich and one or more condiments (‘607, Paragraph [0012]) disposed in a container (packaging) (‘607, Paragraph [0043]).
Hyodo et al. modified with Garcia Torres, Mirkhaef et al., Wartman et al., Fischl, McDonald et al., Buchko, Frehn et al., McMaster et al., and Lindee is silent regarding placing the packaged condiments into the container with a second automated picker robot.
Magnusson et al. discloses a prepackaged individual serving of condiments placed within a wrapper by picking up the condiment with an automated picker robot (robotic or other automatic arm) and depositing the prepackaged condiments into a container (wrapper) (‘287, Paragraphs [0003] and [0038]). Kong et al. discloses an automated food packaging assembly method (‘101, Paragraph [0004]) comprising the step of placing a packaged food meal and condiments into a container (‘101, Paragraphs [0109] and [0116]) with one or more automated picker robots (‘101, Paragraphs [0004] and [0018]), which indicates an embodiment wherein a second automated picker robot is used.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Hyodo et al. and place the packaged condiments into a container with a second automated picker robot as taught by Magnusson et al. since providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity of placing the packaged condiments into a container using an automated picker robot which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art in view of In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (MPEP § 2144.04.III.). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Hyodo et al. and use a second automated picker robot to perform the step of placing the food items and condiments into a container as taught by Kong et al. since the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced in view of In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B.).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyodo et al. US 2019/0071195 in view of Garcia Torres US 5,657,685, Mirkhaef et al. US 2019/0352028, Meikle US 2012/0201927, Fitzwater US 2011/0180594, Sullivan et al. US 6,245,368, Fischl US 2017/0050331, McDonald et al. US 2018/0259092, Buchko et al. US 2007/0214752, Frehn et al. US 2014/0324607, McMaster et al. US 2004/0074401, and Lindee US 2010/0101191.
Regarding Claim 18, Hyodo et al. discloses an automated sandwich assembly method (‘195, Paragraphs [0112]-[0113]). The method comprises moving a first portion (top slice of bread S1) and a second portion (bottom slice of bread S1) of a bread (bread S1) via an automated conveyor (conveyors 3) (‘195, Paragraphs [0043] and [0056]) towards an automated picker robot (sorting manipulator 51) (‘195, Paragraph [0048]). One or more inputs (food substances S2) are added to the second portion (bottom slice of bread S1) of the bread (bread S1) (‘195, Paragraph [0056] and [0112]) wherein the one or more inputs (food substances S2) comprise sandwich components to create an assembled sandwich (sandwich S) (‘195, Paragraph [0112]) and the first portion (top slice of bread S1) and the second portion (bottom slice of bread S1) with the plurality of inputs (food substances S2) positioned therebetween to assemble the assembled sandwich (‘195, Paragraphs [0056] and [0100]). The assembled sandwich (sandwich S) is moved to an automated packaging system (packager 4) via the automated conveyor (conveyors 3) and the assembled sandwich is packaged via the automated packaging system (packager 4) (‘195, Paragraphs [0111]-[0112]).
Hyodo et al. is silent regarding the first portion of the top slice of bread and the second portion of the bottom slice of bread being sliced with an automated slicer, the automated conveyor having a first conveying member that moves the top portion and the bottom portion of the sliced piece of bread, slicing the one or more inputs for the piece of bread at input stations and loading the sliced one or more inputs on a second conveying member of the automated conveyor, moving the one or more inputs via the second conveying member wherein the one or more inputs are added to the second conveying member sequentially to receive amounts of inputs from each of the input stations before reaching the automated picker robot, and moving the assembled sandwich via the first conveying member to the automated packaging system.
Garcia Torres discloses an automated sandwich assembly method (‘685, Column 1, lines 8-20). The method comprises slicing with an automated slicer a piece of bread (loaves 13) into a first portion (top slice 14) and a second portion (bottom slice 14) at input stations (cutting stations) (‘685, Column 2, lines 63-67), and moving the first portion (top slice 14) and the second portion (bottom slice 14) of the bread via an automated conveyor (conveyor belt 15) (‘685, Column 1, lines 22-24) (‘685, Column 6, lines 1-15).
Both Hyodo et al. and Garcia Torres are directed towards the same field of endeavor of automated sandwich assembly methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Hyodo et al. and make the two slices of bread of the sandwich by slicing with an automated slicer a piece of bread into a top portion and a bottom portion as taught by Garcia Torres since providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity of slicing one larger piece of bread into two smaller pieces of a piece of bread having a top portion and a bottom portion which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art in view of In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (MPEP § 2144.04.III.).
Further regarding Claim 18, Hyodo et al. modified with Garcia Torres is silent regarding moving the one or more inputs via a first conveying member of the automated conveyor, loading the sliced one or more inputs on a second conveying member of the automated conveyor, moving the one or more inputs via the second conveying member wherein the one or more inputs are added to the second conveying member sequentially, adding the one or more inputs with the automated picker robot, and moving the assembled sandwich via the first conveying member.
Mirkhaef et al. discloses an automated sandwich assembly method (system 200) (‘028, Paragraph [0054]) comprising adding one or more inputs (meat 10) to a bottom portion (bottom bun 14) of a sandwich (sandwich 12) with an automated picker robot (robotic arm 102) wherein the one or more inputs (meat 10) comprise sandwich components to create an assembled sandwich (sandwich 12), moving the assembled sandwich (sandwich 12) to an automated packaging system (wrapping assist device 204), and packaging the assembled sandwich (sandwich 12) via the automated packaging system (wrapping assist device 204) (‘028, Paragraphs [0066]-[0069]).
Both Hyodo et al. and Mirkhaef et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of making a sandwich using an automated sandwich assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Hyodo et al. and use an automated picker robot to add the one or more inputs in the form of meat to the bottom portion of the bread as taught by Mirkhaef et al. since providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity of placing one or more inputs on the bottom portion of the bread using an automated picker robot which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art in view of In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (MPEP § 2144.04.III.).
Further regarding Claim 18, Hyodo et al. modified with Garcia Torres and Mirkhaef et al. is silent regarding the sandwich being a submarine sandwich, moving the one or more inputs via a first conveying member of the automated conveyor, loading the sliced one or more inputs on a second conveying member of the automated conveyor, moving the one or more inputs via the second conveying member wherein the one or more inputs are added to the second conveying member sequentially, and moving the assembled sandwich via the first conveying member.
Meikle discloses a bread yeast mold comprising a plurality of cylindrical inserts of varying size (‘927, Paragraph [0013]) having ellipse shapes for making submarine sandwich buns (‘927, Paragraph [0035]).
Both Hyodo et al. and Meikle are directed towards the same field of endeavor of sandwiches. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Hyodo et al. and make a submarine sandwich as taught by Meikle based upon the type of sandwich desired to be made. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of modified Hyodo et al. and use a piece of cylindrical bread to be sliced with an automated slicer since Meikle teaches that submarine sandwiches generally have a cylindrical, elongate shape. The configuration of the claimed submarine sandwich is a matter 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 submarine sandwich was significant in view of In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B.).
Further regarding Claim 18, Hyodo et al. modified with Garcia Torres, Mirkhaef et al., and Meikle is silent regarding the plurality of inputs being loaded sequentially on the conveying member of the automated conveyor as the automated conveyor moves from one input location to the next as the automated conveyor moves from one input location to the next.
Fischl discloses a method for slicing one or more inputs (one or more food products) (‘331, Paragraph [0001]) wherein the one or more inputs (one or more food products) are moved via a conveyor (conveyor belt 4) (‘311, Paragraph [0030]). Fischl further discloses the plurality of inputs (one or more food products) being added to the conveyor (conveyor belt 4) sequentially to receive amounts of inputs (food products) from each of the input stations (the tracks can be loaded one after another) (‘331, Paragraph [0013]) at the automated conveyor moves from one input location to the next (conveyor belt 4 runs continuously) (‘331, Paragraph [0030]).
Both modified Hyodo et al. and Fischl are directed towards the same field of endeavor of processing food products using a slicer and moving the food products via a conveyor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Hyodo et al. and add the one or more food product inputs of modified Hyodo et al. to the conveyor sequentially to receive amounts of inputs from each of the input stations before reaching the automated picker robot since Fischl teaches that it was known and conventional in the food conveyor art to add one or more food product inputs to the conveyor sequentially.
Further regarding Claim 18, Hyodo et al. modified with Garcia Torres, Mirkhaef et al., Meikle, and Fischl is silent regarding moving the one or more inputs via a first conveying member of the automated conveyor, loading the sliced one or more inputs on a second conveying member of the automated conveyor, moving the one or more inputs via the second conveying member, and moving the assembled sandwich via the first conveying member.
McDonald et al. discloses an apparatus and method of vacuumizing and sealing a food package (‘092, Paragraph [0001]) wherein the apparatus comprises a conveying mechanism for conveying a plurality of platens around a single axis of rotation (‘092, Paragraph [0009]). Additionally, Buchko discloses a conveyor including a series of conveying members (platens) adapted to receive a vacuum packaged food product (‘752, Paragraphs [0053] and [0116]).
Hyodo et al. discloses the automated food processing method comprising using any conveyance system (‘195, Paragraph [0045]). Modified Hyodo et al., McDonald et al., and Buchko are all directed towards the same field of endeavor of automated food assembly methods for processing foods using automated conveyors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Hyodo et al. that uses any conveyance system and incorporate a first conveying member and a second conveying member in the form of a first platen and a second platen to the automated conveyor for moving pieces of food to different locations of the food assembly apparatus since McDonald et al. and Buchko teaches that it was known and conventional in the automated food assembly art to incorporate platens on an automated conveyor for moving food items on the conveyor to different locations of the automated food apparatus. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Hyodo et al. and incorporate a first platen and a second platen on the automated conveyor as taught by McDonald et al. and Buchko since the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced in view of In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B.). McDonald et al. and Buchko teaches that there was known utility in the food packaging art to incorporate a plurality of conveying members in the form of platens onto a conveyor system that moves food items. Additionally, loading packages onto platens avoids manual loading of packages (‘092, Paragraph [0007]).
Further regarding Claim 18, Hyodo et al. modified with Garcia Torres, Mirkhaef et al., Meikle, Fischl, McDonald et al., and Buchko et al. is silent regarding one or more inputs being loaded on a conveying member of the automated conveyor and moving the conveying member with the one or more inputs towards an automated picker robot, adding with the automated picker robot the plurality of inputs from the second conveying member, and one or more condiments or utensils being placed into the packaging that contains the assembled sandwich, and gas flushing, sealing, and labeling the packaged sandwich.
Frehn et al. discloses a method of delivering a custom sandwich to a patron comprising the steps of using a robotic sandwich assembly apparatus including a topping dispenser and a condiment dispenser configured to selectively dispense specific quantities of condiments onto a bun and the robotic sandwich assembly apparatus includes a bagging, boxing, or plating assembly configured to place a completed burger in a packaging for delivery (‘607, Paragraph [0012]).
Both modified Hyodo et al. and Frehn et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of automated sandwich assembly methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Hyodo et al. and add with the picker robot one or more condiments into the packaging of the assembled sandwich to create a packaged sandwich and condiments as taught by Frehn et al. in order to automatically dispense the desired condiments onto the sandwich since providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity ofadding with the picker robot one or more condiments as desired into the packaging using an automated picker robot which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art in view of In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (MPEP § 2144.04.III.). It is noted that the claim does not require the one or more condiments to be separately packaged from the assembled sandwich.
Further regarding Claim 18, Hyodo et al. modified with Garcia Torres, Mirkhaef et al., Meikle, Fischl, McDonald et al., Buchko et al., and Frehn et al. is silent regarding gas flushing, sealing, and labeling the packaged sandwich.
McMaster et al. discloses a method and apparatus used in the production of meals using substantially automatic means (‘401, Paragraph [0002]) comprising the step of flushing the packages before sealing with nitrogen and carbon dioxide gas to result in a substantially longer shelf life to create substantially aseptic conditions in which the process is almost wholly automated by removing human contact with the food in every state except for the preparatory process (‘401, Paragraph [0066]) wherein the sterilized trays are labeled with a labeler (‘401, Paragraph [0153]).
Both modified Hyodo et al. and McMaster et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of automated food packaging methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Hyodo et al. and package via the automated system the assembled sandwich by gas flushing, sealing, and labeling the packaged sandwich as taught by McMaster et al. in order to increase the shelf life of the food package by almost wholly automating and removing human contact with the food and by flushing the packages before sealing (‘401, Paragraph [0066]). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the process of modified Hyodo et al. and label the food package as taught by McMaster et al. in order to easily identify the contents of the food package.
Further regarding Claim 18, Hyodo et al. modified with Garcia Torres, Mirkhaef et al., Meikle, Fischl, McDonald et al., Buchko et al., Frehn et al., and McMaster et al. is silent regarding placing the assembled sandwich into a preformed pocket of packaging with one or more condiments or utensils.
Lindee discloses a system for handling food products from an apparatus that slices or forms the food product (‘191, Paragraph [0002]) wherein a shuttle robot delivers food products from an upstream main conveyor into containers formed in a group of rows of pockets formed in a lower web of film by the packaging machine wherein the containers or pockets that are filled with food product are sealed by an upper web of film in a sealing station (‘191, Paragraph [0039]).
Both modified Hyodo et al. and Lindee are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of packaging food using robotic arms. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Hyodo et al. and place the assembled sandwich into a preformed pocket since Lindee teaches that it was known in the food packaging art to fill containers or pockets with food product and sealing therein. Although Lindee does not explicitly teach the preformed pocket of packaging also containing one or more condiments or utensils, Lindee teaches filling the containers or pockets with desired items. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Hyodo et al. and fill the container with any other desired items in conjunction with food items based upon the desired items to be packaged.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyodo et al. US 2019/0071195 in view of Garcia Torres US 5,657,685, Mirkhaef et al. US 2019/0352028, Meikle US 2012/0201927, Fischl US 2017/0050331, McDonald et al. US 2018/0259092, Buchko et al. US 2007/0214752, Frehn et al. US 2014/0324607, McMaster et al. US 2004/0074401, and Lindee US 2010/0101191 as applied to claim 18 above in further view of Vardakostas et al. US 2019/0261671.
Regarding Claim 19, Hyodo et al. modified with Garcia Torres, Mirkhaef et al., Meikle, Fischl, McDonald et al., Buchko et al., Frehn et al., McMaster et al., and Lindee is silent regarding determining via a set of electronic instructions a type of submarine to assemble using a combination of the plurality of inputs.
Vardakostas et al. discloses an automated sandwich assembly method (‘671, Paragraph [0028]) comprising a processor configured to carry out a topping order to dispense topping servings to fulfill custom topping orders via a set of electronic instructions (‘671, Paragraph [0100]) wherein the processor receives a topping order from a patron through a customer touchscreen interface (‘6741, Paragraph [0102]), which reads on the claimed determining via a set of electronic instructions a type of sandwich to assemble using a combination of the one or more inputs.
Both modified Hyodo et al. and Vardakostas et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of automatically assembling a sandwich. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of modified Hyodo et al. and determine via a set of electronic instructions a type of sandwich to assemble using a combination of one or more input toppings as taught by Vardakostas et al. since providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity of determining via a set of electronic instructions a type of submarine to assemble using a combination of the one or more inputs which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art in view of In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (MPEP § 2144.04.III.).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyodo et al. US 2019/0071195 in view of Garcia Torres US 5,657,685, Mirkhaef et al. US 2019/0352028, Meikle US 2012/0201927, Fischl US 2017/0050331, McDonald et al. US 2018/0259092, Buchko et al. US 2007/0214752, Frehn et al. US 2014/0324607, McMaster et al. US 2004/0074401, Lindee US 2010/0101191, and Vardakostas et al. US 2019/0261671 as applied to claim 19 above in further view of Frehn et al. US 2017/0024789.
Regarding Claim 20, Hyodo et al. modified with Garcia Torres, Mirkhaef et al., Meilke, Fischl, McDonald et al., Buchko, Frehn et al., McMaster et al., Lindee, Vardakostas et al. is silent regarding the set of electronic instructions being stored in an electronic database.
Frehn et al. discloses a food assembly apparatus database (‘789, Paragraph [0027]) for toppings (‘789, Paragraph [0033]).
Both Hyodo et al. and Frehn et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of automatically assembling a sandwich. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Hyodo et al. and store the set of electronic instructions in an electronic database since Frehn et al. teaches that it was known and conventional in the sandwich making art to store electronic instructions in an electronic database.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10-11 and 18-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-11, and 18-20 of copending Application No. 17/224,699 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because art that reads on Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, and 18-20 of the copending ‘699 application also reads on Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, and 18-20 of the instant application. Independent Claim 1 and 18 recite the broader limitations of a first conveying member and a second conveying member, which are read on a first platen and a second platen recited in the claims of the copending ‘699 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Examiner notes that the previous Double Patenting rejections have been maintained herein.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the obviousness rejections of Claims 1 and 18 under 35 USC 103(a) with respect to the newly presented limitations “wherein the packaging comprises placing the assembled sandwich into a preformed pocket” recited in Claim 1 and the newly presented limitations “placing the assembled sandwich into a preformed pocket of packaging with one or more condiments or utensils” recited in Claim 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The secondary reference of Lindee is currently being relied upon to render obvious these newly presented limitations.
Applicant's arguments filed April 16, 2026 with respect to the previous obviousness rejections of Claim 10 under 35 USC 103(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pages 10-11 of the Remarks with respect to Claim 10 that Magnusson is directed towards the filling of packages with a condiment and the entire disclosure revolves around that principle and how it is accomplished. Applicant contends that Paragraph [0038] of Magnusson refers to how an individual condiment packaging is filled and sealed which applicant alleges has nothing to do with the claimed invention which is not directed towards the filling of condiment packages but instead to the inclusion of condiments into sandwich packaging.
Examiner argues Claim 10 relies upon the secondary references of Magnusson and Kong et al. Kong et al. discloses using one or more robots for packaging food items in conjunction with condiments. Magnusson discloses incorporating condiment packaging with food items. The transitional phrase “comprising” is open ended and does not preclude the presence of the condiments being packaged individually and accompanied with food items. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, this argument is not found persuasive.
Examiner notes that applicant’s comments on Pages 7-8 of the Remarks that the repeated reliance on In re Venner is misplaced does not specifically and distinctly point out the supposed errors of the Office Action. Applicant contends that Venner applies where automation merely substitutes mechanical means for manual performance of identical steps whereas the claimed invention allegedly does not automate anything and that the process of the claimed invention is fundamentally different than that disclosed in any of the references. Applicant contends that Venner does not render obvious structural changes that enable new operational workflows. Applicant also argues with respect to the reference to In re Harza for the mere duplication of parts allegedly mischaracterizes the claimed invention in that Harza applies to duplicating identical components performing identical functions and the Burhans rationale also mischaracterizes the claimed invention and addresses reordering sequential steps whereas the claims introduce parallel concurrent processing also do not specifically and distinctly point out the supposed errors of the Office Action. These case law are rationale associated with motivation statements for relying upon secondary references in the Office Action. Applicant does not address the reliance of the secondary references applied in conjunction with these case law.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Richards et al. US 2017/0266817 discloses a method for sorting and organizing food products during packaging using food handling machinery and a robotic tool (‘817, Paragraph [0002]) comprising the step of using an actuation arm of a robot loader wherein groups associated with pockets formed in packaging material of a food product receiving device such that each group is aligned with one pocket (‘817, Paragraph [0037]) wherein the robotic loader aligns groups in a vertical or horizontal direction such that groups of food products are deposited into adjacent pockets wherein the pockets are typically formed from a transparent, flexible polymer material known in the food industry (‘817, Paragraph [0041]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICSON M LACHICA whose telephone number is (571)270-0278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5pm, 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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/ERICSON M LACHICA/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights