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
In applicant’s reply on 05/08/2026, the claims were amended. Based on these amendments, revised rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 can be found below as well as new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 10-11, 13, 16, 20, 23, 25-28, 31, and 65-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the snack product has an air content of between 8.7 wt. % and 16.2 wt. % after the operation of frying the snack product in the centrifuge air fryer”. This is not supported by the disclosure as originally filed. Applicant points to Pg. 25-26 of the specification for support of this new claim, yet Table 1 supports air content of 16.2 % and 18.7%. This cannot support a claim of air content that differs from these specifically disclosed amounts. For example, the Table 1 does not support an invention with an air content of 10 wt. %. Claims 2-5, 7, 10-11, 13, 16, 20, 23, 25-28, and 65-66 are similarly rejected as they depend from claim 1.
Similarly, claim 31 recites “wherein the snack product has a starch content of between 65.2 wt. % and 70.4 wt. % after the operation of frying the snack product in the centrifuge air fryer”. This is not supported by the disclosure as originally filed. Applicant points to Pg. 25-26 of the specification for support of this new claim, yet Table 1 supports starch content of 70.4% and 65.2%. This cannot support a claim of starch content that differs from these specifically disclosed amounts. For example, the Table 1 does not support an invention with a starch content of 67 wt. %.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 67 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 67 recites “wherein the snack product has a surface oil content 15 wt. % less than regular fried snack products after the operation of frying the snack product in the centrifuge air fryer”. It is unclear what the oil content of “regular fried snack products” is. As a wide variety of fried snack products exist, there is no way for one having ordinary skill in the art to determine what a “regular” snack product is and what its oil content is.
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, 5, 10-11, 13, 16, 20, 23, 25, 28 and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernard (US 4537786 A) found in applicant’s IDS filed 2/21/2022 in view of Magana (US 2017/0172160 A1) found in applicant’s IDS filed 2/21/2022, further in view of Foster (US 2010/0258109 A1), further in view of Durance (US 5,676,989).
Regarding Claim 1, Bernard teaches preparing a reduced fat fried snack product (low oil potato chips Col. 1 line 55-Col. 2 line 2)
comprising: preparing discrete units of a snack product (slices of whole potatoes, washed, peeled then sliced Col. 2 lines 6-14);
par frying the snack product in an oil fryer wherein par frying the snack product in the oil fryer reduces moisture in the snack product to approximately 2 to 8 weight percent (frying until moisture content of 3%-15% Col. 1 line 55-Col. 2 line 2);
and using forced air to reduce moisture in the snack product to 1.5 to 2.5 weight percent (contacting potato chips with forced stream of air until moisture of about 2% Col. 1 line 55-Col. 2 line 2)
and reduces fat content of the snack product to 12 to 38 weight percent (oil content from about 18%-25% Col. 3 lines 31-53).
Bernard does not teach frying in a centrifuge air fryer, or wherein frying the snack product in the centrifuge air fryer retains lipid droplets with a mean lipid droplet size of less than 100 mm2 on the surface thereof, less than 600 pores per mm2 of surface area, or wherein the snack product has an air content of between 8.7 wt. % and 16.2 wt. % after the operation of frying the snack product in the centrifuge air fryer.
Though Bernard does not teach a centrifuge air fryer as the source of the forced air in its invention, Magana, in the same field of endeavor, discloses using an air fryer in a two step frying process (Par. 0034). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to use the air fryer of Magana as the source of forced air in the invention of Bernard. One would have been motivated to make this modification to for a crispy, non-greasy product (Magana Par. 0006).
Magana does not teach the air fryer is a centrifuge air fryer or wherein frying the snack product in the centrifuge air fryer retains lipid droplets with a mean lipid droplet size of less than 100 mm2 on the surface thereof, less than 600 pores per mm2 of surface area, or wherein the snack product has an air content of between 8.7 wt. % and 16.2 wt. % after the operation of frying the snack product in the centrifuge air fryer.
Foster, in the same field of endeavor teaches a centrifugal oil removal device which spins while providing convection type cooking (spinning section where excess oil, grease, fat and the like are removed from the food while, at the same time, providing some degree of convection type cooking Par. 0125; centrifugal oil removal Par. 0135).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to apply the centrifugal spinning section of Foster to the invention of Bernard and Magana. One would have been motivated to make this modification to remove oil from the fried food (Foster Par. 0135).
Foster does not teach wherein frying the snack product in the centrifuge air fryer retains lipid droplets with a mean lipid droplet size of less than 100 mm2 on the surface thereof, less than 600 pores per mm2 of surface area, or wherein the snack product has an air content of between 8.7 wt. % and 16.2 wt. % after the operation of frying the snack product in the centrifuge air fryer.
Durance, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a snack product with less than 600 pores per mm2 of surface area (chip with pores in the order of 0.1 mm to 1 mm in diameter Col. 5 lines 42-44). This would give a maximum number of pores of between 1 and 100 pores per mm2 of surface area.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to apply the pore size of Durance to the invention of modified Bernard. One would have been motivated to make this modification to simulate the texture and taste of deep fried potato chips (Durance Col. 5 lines 42-44).
Durance does not teach wherein frying the snack product in the centrifuge air fryer retains lipid droplets with a mean lipid droplet size of less than 100 mm2 on the surface thereof, or wherein the snack product has an air content of between 8.7 wt. % and 16.2 wt. % after the operation of frying the snack product in the centrifuge air fryer.
Regarding lipid droplets on the surface of the product, the method of modified Bernard has the same ingredients and process as the invention, so a person of ordinary skill in the art, would expect the product to have a similar lipid composition between both products.
Regarding wherein the snack product has an air content of between 8.7 wt. % and 16.2 wt. % after the operation of frying the snack product in the centrifuge air fryer, the method of modified Bernard teaches the same ingredients and method of production as the invention, so a person of ordinary skill in the art, would expect the product to have a similar air content between both products.
Regarding Claim 2, Bernard further teaches the residence time in the oil fryer is from 2.5 to 9 minutes (Frying discontinued when moisture is within desired range Col. 2 lines 44-55; fried for 4 minutes 10 seconds Col. 4 lines 40-57).
Regarding Claim 3, Bernard further teaches the residence time in the centrifuge air fryer is 0.5 to 8 minutes (subjected to hot air for 2-4 minutes Col. 2 line 56-Col. 3 line 18).
Regarding Claim 5, Bernard further teaches a gas temperature within the centrifuge air fryer is from 250 to 500 degrees Fahrenheit (250-350F Col. 2 line 56-Col. 3 line 18).
Regarding Claim 10, Bernard further teaches an oil temperature in the oil fryer is from 265 to 400 degrees Fahrenheit (280-320F Col. 2 lines 44-55).
Regarding Claim 11, Bernard further teaches preparing discrete units of the snack product further comprises slicing a food material (slices of whole potatoes, washed, peeled then sliced Col. 2 lines 6-14).
Regarding Claim 13, Bernard further teaches the snack product is a potato chip (potato chips Col. 1 line 55-Col. 2 line 2).
Regarding Claim 16, Magana further teaches the snack product is a tortilla chip (Par. 0002).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to apply the tortilla product of Magana to the method of modified Bernard and Magana. One would have been motivated to make this modification to use the invention in a wide range of applications and cuisines (Magana Par. 0044).
Regarding Claim 20, Bernard further teaches an interior of the centrifuge air fryer is under vacuum (suction from below, negative pressure of suction is about 1.2-1.8 inches of water Col. 2 line 56-Col. 3 line 18).
Regarding Claim 23, Magana further teaches precooking a component of the snack product prior to par frying the snack product in the oil fryer (corn kernels are boiled Par. 0027).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to apply the precook step of Magana to the method of modified Bernard. One would have been motivated to make this modification to dissolve the cell walls of the kernels (Magana Par. 0027).
Regarding Claim 25, Bernard further teaches the centrifuge air fryer operates at a pressure of about .18-.28 inches of water (Col. 2 line 56-Col. 3 line 18). Though Bernard is silent regarding the gas flow rate, the size of the vessel will determine the flow rate given Bernard’s pressure. Further, it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to choose an appropriate temperature, and based on that as well as the size of the vessel, the flow rate will depend from those conditions.
Regarding Claim 28, though modified Bernard does not explicitly disclose the snack product has a starch content of greater than 50 wt. %, less than 600 pores per millimeter squared of surface area, the method of Bernard, Magana, and Foster has the same ingredients and process as the invention, so a person of ordinary skill in the art, would expect the product to have a similar starch composition between both products.
Regarding Claim 66, Bernard teaches forced air being heated to a set temperature (Col. 1 line 56-Col. 2 line 2), but is silent regarding control of this condition.
Magana does not teach a gas control system to control gaseous conditions within the centrifuge air fryer
Foster teaches a gas control system to control gaseous conditions within the centrifuge air fryer (controller 55 accepts input for air temperature Par. 0189; fan control Par. 0149).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to apply the control system of Magana to the invention of modified Bernard. One would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for automation of the processes (Foster Par. 0189).
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernard in view of Magana, Foster and Durance, further in view of Bows et al. (US 2008/0026118 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Bernard, Magana, Foster and Durance teach the limitations of claim 1 but they do not teach the residence time in the centrifuge air fryer is greater than the residence time in the oil fryer.
Bows, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the residence time in the centrifuge air fryer is greater than the residence time in the oil fryer (flash fry for 7-10 seconds Par. 0032; explosive dehydration less than about 60 seconds Par. 0069). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to apply the residence times of Bows to the invention of modified Bernard. One would have been motivated to make this modification to produce a product with a more pronounced flavor profile (Bows Par. 0126).
Regarding Claim 7, Bernard, Magana, Foster and Durance do not teach a gas temperature within the centrifuge air fryer is set at a first temperature for a first time period and is set at a second temperature for a second time period.
Bows teaches a gas temperature within the centrifuge air fryer is set at a first temperature for a first time period and is set at a second temperature for a second time period (dehydration 200 Par. 0065, finish dry 300 Par. 122 Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to apply the dehydration and finish drying steps of Bows to the invention of modified Bernard. One would have been motivated to make this modification to produce a product with a more pronounced flavor profile (Bows Par. 0126).
Claims 26 and 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernard in view of Magana, Foster and Durance, further in view of Biglione et al. (US 2017/0035078 A1).
Regarding Claim 26, Bernard, Magana, Foster and Durance teach the limitations of claim 1 above but they do not teach exposing the discrete units of the snack product to a pulse electric field prior to par frying the snack product in the oil fryer.
Biglione, in the same field of endeavor, teaches exposing the discrete units of the snack product to a pulse electric field prior to par frying the snack product in the oil fryer (sliced potatoes subjected to pulsed electric field then par-fried Par. 0008). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to further modify the invention of modified Bernard with the PEF treatment of Biglione. One would have been motivated to make this modification to control the textural hardness of the potato chip (Biglione Par. 0037).
Regarding claim 65, Bernard, Magana, Foster and Durance do not teach an oil temperature in the oil fryer is greater than 340 degrees Fahrenheit.
Biglione teaches an oil temperature in the oil fryer is greater than 340 degrees Fahrenheit (frying oil in immersion fryer is between about 335°F and 370°F Par. 0020). As Biglione teaches “about” 335°F, the taught range of about 335°F and 370°F reasonably encompasses the claimed greater than 340°F.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to further modify the invention of modified Bernard with the frying temperature of Biglione. One would have been motivated to make this modification to decrease the moisture of the chip slices (Biglione Par. 0015).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernard in view of Magana Foster and Durance, further in view of Wutke (2020).
Regarding Claim 27, Bernard, Magana, Foster and Durance teach the limitations of claim 1 above but they do not teach the centrifuge air fryer includes a microwave or RF emitter.
Wutke, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a centrifuge air fryer which includes a microwave or RF emitter (4-in-1 microwave with air fryer Par. 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to use the air fryer microwave combo of Wutke in the invention of modified Bernard. One would have been motivated to make this modification to have an apparatus that includes convection, broil, bake, and microwave (Wutke Par. 3).
Claims 31 and 67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernard, in view of Magana and Foster, further in view of Bows.
Regarding Claim 31, Bernard, Magana, and Foster teach preparing a reduced fat fried snack product comprising: preparing discrete units of a snack product; par frying the snack product in an oil fryer, wherein par frying the snack product in the oil fryer reduces moisture in the snack product to approximately 2 to 8 weight percent; frying the snack product in a centrifuge air fryer, wherein frying the snack product in the centrifuge air fryer reduces moisture in the snack product to 1.5 to 2.5 weight percent and reduces fat content of the snack product to 12 to 38 weight percent as seen in the above rejection of Claim 1.
Bernard further teaches applying a seasoning composition to the snack product (Bernard Col. 3 lines 27-30). Though Bernard doesn’t teach the seasoning is added in the centrifuge air fryer, it teaches tumbling with salt and/or other flavorings (Col. 3 lines 27-30). As the combination of modified Bernard teaches a centrifuge air fryer, which is capable of tumbling, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to perform the tumbling step within the centrifuge air fryer.
Bernard teaches wherein there is operation of a first mode during the frying of the snack product and a second mode during the application of the seasoning composition (post fry blowoff step, then apply salt and/or seasoning during tumble step Col. 3 lines 27-30).
Regarding wherein the snack product comprises a core zone and surface zones, wherein the total thickness of the surface zones versus the core zone comprises a ratio or 0.1:1 to 10:1, it has been held that with respect to changes in size and/or shape, the configuration of a claimed object is a matter of choice which a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. See MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Bernard does not teach the first mode comprises a higher rotation speed than the second mode, or applying a seasoning composition to the snack product increases the fat content of the snack product to 33 to 38 weight percent, or wherein the snack product has a starch content of between 65.2 wt. % and 70.4 wt. % after the operation of frying the snack product in the centrifuge air fryer
Magana does not teach the first mode comprises a higher rotation speed than the second mode, or applying a seasoning composition to the snack product increases the fat content of the snack product to 33 to 38 weight percent, or wherein the snack product has a starch content of between 65.2 wt. % and 70.4 wt. % after the operation of frying the snack product in the centrifuge air fryer.
Foster teaches changing speed during spinning of the fried food, wherein the first mode comprises a higher rotation speed than the second mode (after the spinning process is complete, the motor may slow down gradually until it stops Par. 0188). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to further modify the invention of modified Bernard with the speed change of Foster. One would have been motivated to make this modification to slow down the spinning to stop and remove food (Foster Par. 0188).
Foster does not teach applying a seasoning composition to the snack product increases the fat content of the snack product to 33 to 38 weight percent, or wherein the snack product has a starch content of between 65.2 wt. % and 70.4 wt. % after the operation of frying the snack product in the centrifuge air fryer.
Bows, in the same field of endeavor, teaches applying a seasoning composition to the snack product to increases the fat content of the snack product (season 400, an oil spray can be used before or in conjunction with the seasoning step to tailor the final oil content Par. 0122 Fig. 1). Though Bows is silent regarding the final oil content after the seasoning step, absent a showing of criticality one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably adjust the oil addition to produce a chip with a desirable taste and texture.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the invention of Bernard, Magana, and Foster with the oil and seasoning addition of Bows. One would have been motivated to make this modification to assist with seasoning adhesion (Bows Par. 0122).
Regarding lipid droplets on the surface of the product, as the combination of modified Bernard teach the method as claimed, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect the resulting product to have lipid droplets of the same size as in the claimed method.
Regarding wherein the snack product has a starch content of between 65.2 wt. % and 70.4 wt. % after the operation of frying the snack product in the centrifuge air fryer, the method of modified Bernard teaches the same ingredients and method of production as the invention, so a person of ordinary skill in the art, would expect the product to have a similar starch content between both products.
Regarding claim 67, Bernard, Magana, and Foster teach a method of preparing a reduced fat fried snack product comprising: preparing discrete units of a snack product; par frying the snack product in an oil fryer, wherein par frying the snack product in the oil fryer reduces moisture in the snack product to approximately 2 to 8 weight percent; and frying the snack product in a centrifuge air fryer, wherein frying the snack product in the centrifuge air fryer reduces moisture in the snack product to 1.5 to 2.5 weight percent and reduces fat content of the snack product to 12 to 38 weight percent, as seen in the above rejection of claim 1.
They do not teach wherein a gas within the centrifuge air fryer contains less than 1 percent by volume oxygen and at least 95 percent by volume nitrogen, or wherein the snack product has a surface oil content 15 wt. % less than regular fried snack products after the operation of frying the snack product in the centrifuge air fryer.
Bows teaches wherein a gas within a rotary de oiling system contains less than 1 percent by volume oxygen and at least 95 percent by volume nitrogen (de-oiling with nitrogen, exclude oxygen Par. 0042; nitrogen as an alternative to hot air Par. 0044). As oxygen is excluded, one can assume the media is entirely nitrogen.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the invention of Bernard, Magana, and Foster with the nitrogen media of Bows. One would have been motivated to make this modification to avoid oxidation and preserve quality (Bows Par. 0042).
Bows does not teach wherein the snack product has a surface oil content 15 wt. % less than regular fried snack products after the operation of frying the snack product in the centrifuge air fryer.
Regarding wherein the snack product has a surface oil content 15 wt. % less than regular fried snack products after the operation of frying the snack product in the centrifuge air fryer, the method of modified Bernard teaches the same ingredients and method of production as the invention, so a person of ordinary skill in the art, would expect the product to have a similar surface oil content between both products.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 6-9, filed 05/08/2026, with respect to Claim 31 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. 112 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Durance discloses a fundamentally different process from that of Bernard and as such one would not expect the combination of the two to result in a product with the pore characteristics of the claimed invention. The combination of Bernard, Magana and Foster teach the method steps as claimed, Durance is merely relied on to teach that the claimed pore size is known in the art to improve taste and texture (see above rejection). Further, applicant is arguing the pore size is a result of the process and as the combination of references above teach the method as claimed, one would then expect the product of the prior art to have similar pore characteristics as the present invention.
Applicant argues there is no suggestion or motivation in Bernard to lead one to believe its process conditions would result in the pore count or size of Durance. This argument is not persuasive because the rejection above proposes that the invention of Bernard is merely silent regarding pore size and count and therefore one having ordinary skill in the art would look to Durance and be motivated to modify Bernard to have the specified pore qualities.
Applicant argues one having ordinary skill in the art would not expect Bernard when modified by Magana and Foster to result in the claimed pore count or size. This argument is not perasusive because the rejection above proposes that the invention of Bernard in view of Magana and Foster are silent regarding pore size and count and therefore one having ordinary skill in the art would look to Durance and be motivated to further modify Bernard to have the specified pore qualities.
Applicant argues the art of record does not teach the amendments to the claims. The rejections have been revised above to address the newly added limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Van Der Doe (US 2004/0031396 A1) teaches a method of frying slices with a centrifugal water removal (Claim 12).
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 ARIEL M RODGERS whose telephone number is (571)272-7857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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 5712703475. 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.
/A.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights