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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/11/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-6, 13-16, 18-19, 21 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Office Action mailed on 06/11/2025.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitations that use the word “step” are:
“steps: (i) reducing the fruit or vegetables to small particles” in claim 19, interpreted as cutting fruit or vegetables by blade as described in paragraph [24] of the original disclosure “The means for reducing the fruit or vegetables to small particles can therefore comprise at least one blade”, and equivalents thereof.
“steps:… drying the small particles of fruit or vegetables,” in claim 19, interpreted as air drying as described in paragraph [16] of the original disclosure “the air acting to dry the fruit or vegetables”, and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 16, 18, 19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata, US 11478800 (hereafter Sakata) and further in view of Schlesiger et al., US 6880772(hereafter Schlesiger), Doenges et al., US 5921479 (hereafter Doenges), and Bullinger et al., US 20060107587 (hereafter Bullinger).
Regarding claim 1,
“A device for processing fruit or vegetables,” (Column 9, lines 65-67 in Sakata teaches “a dry grinding machine 100 can be favorably used for creating dry powder of food products such as seeds, pulp, fruits, leaves, or the like derived from plants;”)
“the device comprising: (i) a first chamber having a first ingress for air,” (Ref 150 in Fig. 1)
PNG
media_image1.png
540
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Sakata teaches a dryer and grinder
“a second ingress for the fruit or vegetables,” (Ref 130 in Fig. 1)
“and a series of blades connected to a rotating shaft for reducing the fruit or vegetables to small particles,” (Fig. 6)
PNG
media_image2.png
520
596
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Sakata teaches blades on a rotating shaft
“ (ii) a second chamber directly connected to the first chamber,” (Ref. 121 in Fig. 1)
“the second chamber having an ingress to receive fruit and vegetables from the first chamber” (Fig. 6)
“ and an egress for the processed fruit or vegetables;” (Ref. 140 in Fig. 1)
…”such that during operation of the device for processing, fruit or vegetables is passed into the first chamber via the second ingress with concomitant passage of air into the first chamber via the first ingress” (Column 7, lines 25-30 teach “the material to be processed fed into the grinding chamber 120 from the feed-in section 130 is easily transported in the hot air blown into the grinding chamber 120 from the blowing section 150 to have a swirling flow.”)
“with the air acting to dry the fruit or vegetables whilst the fruit or vegetables is reduced to small particles within the first chamber,” (Abstract teaches “the material to be processed that has been ground by the first blade while being dried by the hot air fed in from the feed-in section.” Fig. 6 teaches first blade 210 is in the first chamber.)
“and wherein the resultant dried fruit or vegetables passes from the first chamber to the second chamber for collection via the egress of the second chamber,” (Fig. 6)
… “wherein the first chamber is in the form of a cylindrical drum.” (Fig. 1)
Sakata is silent about “wherein the second ingress comprises rotation paddles, a screw pump, or a conveyor adapted to introduce the fruit or vegetables into the first chamber,” “wherein rotation of the rotating shaft is controlled by a motor;”, “and (iii) one or more regulators adapted to control air flow through the first ingress;”, “wherein the second ingress is provided with a seal that prevents air within the first chamber exiting the first chamber via the second ingress”.
Schlesiger teaches “wherein the second ingress comprises rotation paddles, a screw pump, or a conveyor adapted to introduce the fruit or vegetables directly into the first chamber,”. Sakata teaches a feeder to introduce fruit or vegetables however Sakata is silent about screw conveyor.
Schlesiger teaches in column 6, lines 18-20 “the material to be milled can be transported directly into the grinding chamber (i.e., mill 2) by a conveying means (7), for example a twin screw or single screw conveying device.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add screw conveyor as taught in Schlesiger to the feeder in Sakata. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the material to be milled can be transported directly into the grinding chamber (i.e., mill 2) by a conveying means (7), for example a twin screw or single screw conveying device” as taught in column 6, lines 18-20 in Schlesiger.
Primary combination of references is silent about “wherein rotation of the rotating shaft is controlled by a motor;”, “and (iii) one or more regulators adapted to control air flow through the first ingress;”, “wherein the second ingress is provided with a seal that prevents air within the first chamber exiting the first chamber via the second ingress”.
Doenges teaches “wherein rotation of the rotating shaft is controlled by a motor;”. Sakata teaches in column 5, lines 45-50 “The rotating shaft 110 is rotationally driven by a drive apparatus (not shown in the drawings) arranged outside the grinding chamber 120.”
Sakata is silent about a motor controlling the shaft.
Doenges teaches an apparatus and process for simultaneously grinding and drying a material containing cellulose ether in Fig. 1. Column 5, lines 1-5 teaches that the shafts for beater wheel is driven by motor.
PNG
media_image3.png
584
799
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Doenges
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use a motor as taught in Doenges as the drive apparatus in Sakata. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “Arranged in the housing 1 is a beater wheel, which rotates by means of the drive shaft 8 and has radial beating arms, at the end of which beater bars 3 are arranged” as taught in column 4, lines 65-67 in Doenges.
Primary combination of references is silent about “and (iii) one or more regulators adapted to control air flow through the first ingress;”, “wherein the second ingress is provided with a seal that prevents air within the first chamber exiting the first chamber via the second ingress”.
Bullinger teaches “and (iii) one or more regulators adapted to control air flow through the first ingress;”. Paragraph [104] teaches “The fluidizing air 160 is distributed throughout the plenum region 158 and forced upwards through the openings 155 or valves in the distributor plate 154 at high pressure to fluidize the coal 12 lying within the fluidized bed region 156.” Here valves correspond to regulators to control air flow.
PNG
media_image4.png
537
826
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 in Bullinger teaches a seal to feed the raw material
“wherein the second ingress is provided with a seal that prevents air within the first chamber exiting the first chamber via the second ingress, and” (Bullinger teaches “a fluidized-bed dryer for heat treating a particulate material in a low temperature, open-air process” in abstract. Fig. 4 teaches dryer 150 wherein “Fluidized-bed dryer 150 preferably includes a wet bed rotary airlock 176 operationally connected to wet coal inlet 164 for maintaining a pressure seal between the coal feed and the dryer, while permitting introduction of the wet coal 12 to the fluidized bed 156” in paragraph [106]. Here, inlet 164 corresponds to the second ingress and air lock 176 corresponds to the seal. Thus, Bullinger is solving the same problem of providing a seal at the raw material feed line as the instant claim.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add a seal as taught in Bullinger to the raw material inlet 130 in Sakata. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the valves as taught in Bullinger to control air flow in Sakata. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “Fluidized-bed dryer 150 preferably includes a wet bed rotary airlock 176 operationally connected to wet coal inlet 164 for maintaining a pressure seal between the coal feed and the dryer, while permitting introduction of the wet coal 12 to the fluidized bed 156” as taught in paragraph [106] in Bullinger.)
Regarding claim 3,
“The device for processing according to claim 1, wherein the first ingress for air is positioned towards the lowest region of the first chamber.” (Fig. 1 of Sakata.)
Regarding claim 4,
“The device for processing according to claim 1, wherein the second ingress for fruit or vegetables is positioned towards the uppermost region of the first chamber.” (Fig. 1 of Sakata.)
Regarding claim 5,
“The device for processing according to claim 1, wherein the first ingress for air is positioned towards the uppermost region of the first chamber.” (Sakata teaches an ingress for hot air 130 towards the uppermost region of the first chamber.)
Regarding claim 6,
“The device for processing according to claim 1, wherein the second ingress for fruit or vegetables is positioned towards the lowest region of the first chamber.” (Sakata is silent about this limitation.
Schlesiger teaches an apparatus for combined milling and drying. Schlesiger teaches in Fig. 1 and column 6, lines 17-22 “In the case of a pasty consistency, the material to be milled can be transported directly into the grinding chamber (i.e., mill 2) by a conveying means (7), for example a twin screw or single screw conveying device.” Fig. 1 teaches that conveying means 7 is positioned towards the lowest region of the mill 2.
PNG
media_image5.png
507
733
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Schlesiger teaches an ingress for fruit
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to position the ingress for fruit in Sakata towards the lowest region of the 1st chamber as taught in Schlesiger when the material to be milled is heavy and wet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The material to be milled had a pasty consistency and a moisture content of 75% by weight, relative to the total amount. The material to be milled was conveyed into the mill via a twin screw unit (product feed (7))” as taught in column 8, lines 20-25 in Schlesiger.)
Regarding claim 16,
“The device for processing according to claim 1, wherein the first chamber has an interior surface comprising one or more shear teeth and/or ribbed plates.” ( Sakata is silent about this limitation.
Doenges teaches a cage in Fig. 3 wherein “the screening cage comprises sawtooth segments arranged sectionally next to one another at the circumference and friction plates fastened to supporting screens” as taught in column 3, lines 40-46.
PNG
media_image6.png
552
625
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Doenges
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the interior surface of the first chamber in Sakata with sawtooth segments as taught in Doenges. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the impact-reduced ground material is reduced further by the saw teeth of the sawtooth segments 5 and by the friction plates 6” as taught in column 5, lines 18-21 in Doenges.)
Regarding claim 18,
“The device for processing according to claim 1, wherein the egress of the second chamber comprises a cyclone dryer.” (Sakata teaches in column 9, lines 60-65 “The dry powder of the material to be processed that has been discharged from the discharging section 140 along with the hot air is recovered using a classifier such as a cyclone and accumulated.”)
Regarding claim 19,
“A method of drying fruit or vegetables, the method comprising the following steps:” (Column 9, lines 65-68 in Sakata teaches “Such a dry grinding machine 100 can be favorably used for creating dry powder of food products such as seeds, pulp, fruits, leaves, or the like derived from plants”.)
“(i) reducing the fruit or vegetables to small particles; and (ii) drying the small particles of fruit or vegetables, “ wherein steps (i) and (ii) are undertaken at the same time,” (Sakata teaches in abstract “ the material to be processed that has been ground by the first blade while being dried by the hot air fed in from the feed-in section”. )
“wherein steps (i) and (ii) are undertaken by utilizing a device comprising:
(i) a first chamber having a first ingress for air, a second ingress for the fruit or vegetables, and a series of blades connected to a rotating shaft for reducing the fruit or vegetables to small particles wherein the second ingress, comprises rotation paddles, a screw pump, or a conveyor adapted to introduce the fruit or vegetables into the first chamber, wherein rotation of the rotating shaft is controlled by a motor,
(ii) a second chamber directly connected to the first chamber, the second chamber having an ingress to receive fruit and vegetables from the first chamber and an egress for the processed fruit or vegetables, and
(iii) one or more regulators adapted to control air flow through the first ingress;
such that during operation of the device, fruit or vegetables is passed into the first chamber via the second ingress with concomitant passage of air into the first chamber via the first ingress with the air acting to dry the fruit or vegetables whilst the fruit or vegetables is reduced to small particles within the first chamber, and wherein the resultant dried fruit or vegetables passes from the first chamber to the second chamber for collection via the egress of the second chamber,
wherein the second ingress is provided with a seal that prevents air within the first chamber exiting the first chamber via the second ingress,
wherein the first chamber is in the form of a cylindrical drum.” (The device has similar scope to the device in claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Regarding claim 21,
“A food product, or a nutritional supplement, comprising fruit or vegetables processed according to the method of claim 19.”( Column 9, lines 65-68 in Sakata teaches “Such a dry grinding machine 100 can be favorably used for creating dry powder of food products such as seeds, pulp, fruits, leaves, or the like derived from plants”.)
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata, Schlesiger, Doenges, and Bullinger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Johnson, US 0795133 (hereafter Johnson).
“The device for processing according to claim 1, wherein the first chamber has an interior surface that is non-stick.” (Paragraph [33] of the original disclosure describes “In some embodiments, the entire internal surface of the device can be coated with a non-stick surface, or be prepared with a suitable material to ensure a non-stick environment. The non-stick surface can be any suitable non-stick surface used in food technology, including polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), anodized aluminium, ceramic, silicon, a superhydrophobic coating, or a high-polished stainless steel smooth surface.” Thus, the claim is interpreted as interior surface of the first chamber is made of steel.
Sakata is silent about a steel interior surface.
Johnson teaches in column 1, lines 20-30 “a machine in which the material will be reduced or ground into fine particles by a number of beaters arranged as hereinafter described in a cylinder, the strong circulation of air being maintained in said cylinder, so as to expeditiously dry the material during the grinding operation”. Column 2, lines 70-71 teaches “The interior of the cylinder is lined with steel or other hardened plate 9”. Fig. 5 teaches plate 9 has a wavy and smooth surface.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to line the interior of chamber 120 in Sakata with steel as taught in Johnson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “a machine in which the material will be reduced or ground into fine particles by a number of beaters arranged as hereinafter described in a cylinder, the strong circulation of air being maintained in said cylinder, so as to expeditiously dry the material during the grinding operation” as taught in column 1, lines 20-30 in Johnson. )
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata, Schlesiger, Doenges, and Bullinger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lucas et al., US 8714467 (hereafter Lucas).
“The device for processing according to claim 1, wherein the device for processing the fruit or vegetables comprises at least one scraper.” (Sakata is silent about scraper blade.
Lucas teaches a variety of different combination of elevated ridges and valleys to dry and classify materials in abstract. Fig. 3 teaches scraper blades 108.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the shape of blades in Sakata similar to the scraper blades as taught in Lucas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so “to remove material from inlet end wall 44 as well as from the cylindrical side wall 42” as taught in column 5, lines 35-40 in Lucas.)
PNG
media_image7.png
362
787
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Lucas teaches scrapers
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata, Schlesiger, Doenges, and Bullinger, Johnson as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Lucas et al., US 8714467 (hereafter Lucas).
“The device for processing according to claim 13, wherein the device for processing the fruit or vegetables comprises two scrapers, positioned 180⁰ apart.” (Lucas teaches a variety of different combination of elevated ridges and valleys to dry and classify materials in abstract. Fig. 3 teaches scraper blades 108 positioned 180 degrees apart.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the shape of blades in Sakata similar to the scraper blades as taught in Lucas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so “to remove material from inlet end wall 44 as well as from the cylindrical side wall 42” as taught in column 5, lines 35-40 in Lucas.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/11/2025 with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-6, 13-16, 18-19, 21 have been considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argued on pages 8-9 that the introduction of the seal of Bullinger would block incoming hot air in Sakata. The applicant seemed to interpret the seal in Bullinger to block any air flow throughout the feeding line. However, the function of the seal is to prevent leakage of air through the feeding lines. The seal does not stop incoming air flow.
In response to applicant's argument on page 9 that Bullinger is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Bullinger teaches in paragraph [2] “This invention relates to an apparatus for heat treating particulate materials in a commercially viable manner. More specifically, the invention utilizes a continuous throughput dryer, such as a fluidized bed dryer, in a low-temperature, open-air process to dry such materials to improve their thermal content or processability and reduce plant emissions before the particulate material is processed or combusted at an industrial process plant. While this apparatus may be utilized in many varied industries in an efficient and economical manner”. Here Bullinger is solving the same problem of preventing air leakage in the feeding line of a drying plant as the instant claim.
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 FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached on (571)270-5095. 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.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761