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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-20 remain pending in the application. Claim 21 is new. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Office Action mailed on 09/19/2025.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
unit in claim 1, 20, interpreted as coffee machine as described in page 1 of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof
Sealing element in claim 1, 20 interpreted as O-ring as described in page 6 of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof
Control system in claim 1, 20 interpreted as processor as described in page 14 of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof
Injection circuit in claim 1, 20 interpreted as water supply line as described in Fig. 2 of the original disclosure, 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 § 112
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 10 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 10 cites “form of a fillet”. It is unclear what structure is claimed by form of a fillet.
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, 3-4, 11-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levi et al., US 20030000393 (hereafter Levi), and further in view of Li et al., CN 102621991 (hereafter Li).
Regarding claim 1,
A unit for the preparation of beverages by brewing a dose of a product to be brewed, (Title)
including at least one brewing chamber provided with a receptacle for the dose and with an injection circuit for injecting water into the receptacle, (Fig. 2)
PNG
media_image1.png
468
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 in Levi
the brewing chamber being topped by a movable tray provided with an orifice adapted to be selectively placed opposite a mouth of the receptacle of the brewing chamber, so as to open or close the brewing chamber depending on the position of the orifice, (Abstract teaches “the brewing chambers (1a, 1b) are juxtaposed and topped with a mobile tray (4) provided with an orifice designed to be positioned opposite the brewing chambers (1a, 1b), for opening and closing the chambers (1a, 1b) depending on its position.”)
the brewing chamber comprising a sealing element configured to ensure a sealed contact between a peripheral area of the mouth of the receptacle of the brewing chamber and a lower face of the movable tray, (Fig. 2 and paragraph [84] teaches “the closing of brewing chambers 1a and 1b is sealed by a seal 6 between each chamber 1a and 1b and mobile plate 4.”)
the unit comprising a control system for controlling the movable tray, (Paragraph [109] teaches “That rotation may take place around an axis 13 by means of a motorised system 14 made up of usual elements, particularly a geared motor and a driving system”. Here driving system corresponds to control system.)
wherein the control system is configured to: drive the movable tray in rotation (Paragraph [106] teaches “plate 4 is a mobile disc that rotates on a horizontal plane.”)
…thereby aligning the orifice with the mouth of the receptacle of the brewing chamber. (Paragraph [108] teaches “Orifice 5 and brewing chambers 1a and 1b are placed so that the orifice is placed opposite one of the two chambers 1a or 1b when plate 4 rotates.”)
Levi is silent about and determine a value reflecting the rotational speed of the movable tray, assess a discrepancy between the determined value and a set value, and modulate braking of the movable tray according to the discrepancy.
Li teaches and determine a value reflecting the rotational speed of the movable tray, assess a discrepancy between the determined value and a set value,
and modulate braking of the movable tray according to the discrepancy, (Abstract in Li teaches “Position control device comprises a control unit for obtaining current moving position of the moving mechanism , and for a signal indicative of motion mechanism to move to the target position, when the current moving between the position and the target position of the difference value is more than the set value, the control unit controls the moving mechanism to move at a first speed, if not, the control unit controls the movement mechanism is less than the first speed to the second speed, and the control unit receives the first signal, controlling the control mechanism stops moving.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the control device to detect and compare current speed to target speed and control accordingly as taught in Li to the machine in Levi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “reach high locating precision to prevent mechanical or hydraulic component damage” as taught in abstract in Li.
Regarding claim 3,
The unit according to claim 1, wherein the control system is configured to determine the value reflecting the rotational speed of the movable tray (Levi is silent about this.
Abstract in Li teaches “Position control device comprises a control unit for obtaining current moving position of the moving mechanism , and for a signal indicative of motion mechanism to move to the target position, when the current moving between the position and the target position of the difference value is more than the set value, the control unit controls the moving mechanism to move at a first speed, if not, the control unit controls the movement mechanism is less than the first speed to the second speed, and the control unit receives the first signal, controlling the control mechanism stops moving.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the control device to detect and compare current speed to target speed and control accordingly as taught in Li to the machine in Levi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “reach high locating precision to prevent mechanical or hydraulic component damage” as taught in abstract in Li.
by measuring a time shift between at least two predefined angular positions of the movable tray. (The limitation is defining how to measure angular speed. It is inherent that angular speed is calculated by measuring time shift between two predefined angular position.)
Regarding claim 4,
The unit according to claim 3, wherein the control system comprises at least one presence sensor and wherein the movable tray includes at least one area detectable by the sensor. (Levi is silent about this limitation.
Paragraph [45] in Li teaches “it can adopt encoder (e.g., an angle coder, a stayguy encoder, etc.) and other sensor (such as an angle sensor) capable of detecting the position of the present moving position to be detected”.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the control device with sensor as taught in Li to the machine in Levi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “reach high locating precision to prevent mechanical or hydraulic component damage” as taught in abstract in Li.
Regarding claim 11,
The unit according to claim 1, wherein the brewing chamber comprises, at the mouth, an annular portion set back with respect to the wall of the receptacle, the setback annular portion configured to receive the sealing element. (Fig. 2 in Levi)
PNG
media_image2.png
548
567
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 in Levi
Regarding claim 12,
The unit according to claim 11, wherein the wall of the receptacle comprises a cylindrical sleeve, the setback annular portion being delimited by an outer face of the sleeve. (Fig. 2 in Levi)
PNG
media_image3.png
548
567
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 in Levi
Regarding claim 13,
The unit according to claim 12, wherein the injection circuit comprises a water supply circuit, said water supply circuit comprising a portion extending along the outer face of the sleeve, up to a passage for supplying configured to supply water into the receptacle. (Fig. 2 in Levi)
PNG
media_image4.png
558
647
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 in Levi
Regarding claim 14,
The unit according to claim 13, wherein the passage comprises an interstitial space between an upper end of the sleeve and the lower face of the movable tray. (Fig. 2 in Levi)
Regarding claim 15,
The unit according to claim 13, wherein the water supply circuit is formed between the outer face of the sleeve and an inner face of a body of the brewing chamber. (Fig. 2 in Levi)
PNG
media_image5.png
558
647
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 in Levi
Regarding claim 16,
A beverage production machine, comprising at least one unit according to claim 1. (Title in Levi)
Regarding claim 17,
The unit of claim 3, wherein the at least two predefined angular positions of the movable tray are spaced from each other with an angular spacing value strictly less than 360⁰. (Fig. 3-5 in Levi teaches that the movable tray is circular. It is inherent that to measure angular speed of the tray, the predefined angular positions must be spaced less than 360⁰.)
Regarding claim 18,
The unit of claim 4, wherein the at least one presence sensor comprises two presence sensors which are spaced from each other around the movable tray. (Levi is silent about this. Paragraph [11] in Li teaches “a real-time position detecting unit for detecting the current moving position moving mechanism, a target position detection unit for detecting the movement mechanism has
reached the target position”. It is implied that there are at least two sensors to detect current position and target position.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the control device with two sensors as taught in Li to the machine in Levi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “reach high locating precision to prevent mechanical or hydraulic component damage” as taught in abstract in Li.
Regarding claim 19,
The unit of claim 4, wherein the at least one area detectable by the sensor comprises two distinct areas detectable by the sensor. (Levi is silent about this. Paragraph [11] in Li teaches “a real-time position detecting unit for detecting the current moving position moving mechanism, a target position detection unit for detecting the movement mechanism has reached the target position”. It is implied that current position and target position are two distinct areas.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the control device with two sensors to detect different areas as taught in Li to the machine in Levi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “reach high locating precision to prevent mechanical or hydraulic component damage” as taught in abstract in Li.
Regarding claim 20,
A unit for the preparation of beverages by brewing a dose of a product to be brewed, including at least one brewing chamber provided with a receptacle for the dose and with an injection circuit for injecting water into the receptacle, the brewing chamber being topped by a movable tray provided with an orifice adapted to be selectively placed opposite a mouth of the receptacle of the brewing chamber, so as to open or close the brewing chamber depending on the position of the orifice, the brewing chamber comprising a sealing element configured to ensure a sealed contact between a peripheral area of the mouth of the receptacle of the brewing chamber and a lower face of the movable tray, the unit comprising a control system for controlling the movable tray, wherein the control system is configured to :drive the movable tray in rotation and determine a value reflecting the rotational speed of the movable tray….assess a discrepancy between the determined value and a set value, and modulate braking of the movable tray according to the discrepancy, thereby aligning the orifice with the mouth of the receptacle of the brewing chamber. (Similar scope to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
within a single revolution of the movable tray, (The limitation is defining how to measure angular speed. It is inherent that angular speed is calculated by measuring time shift between two predefined angular position within a single revolution of the movable tray.)
Regarding claim 21,
The unit of claim 3, wherein the control system is further configured to modulate the braking of the movable tray by modifying a power supply of an electric drive motor of the movable tray based on the time shift. (Paragraph [109] in Levi teaches “That rotation may take place around an axis 13 by means of a motorised system 14 made up of usual elements, particularly a geared motor and a driving system”. It is implied that a driving system stops a motor by modifying the power supplied to it.)
Claim(s) 5, 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levi and Li, as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Francois, FR 2580765 (hereafter Francois), and https://web.archive.org/web/20190819135759/https:/www.sspseals.com/u-cup-seals.html, Aug 2019 (hereafter U cup)
Regarding claim 5,
The unit according to claim 1, wherein the sealing element comprises:- a first gasket having a first surface bearing on the lower face of the movable tray; - a second gasket having a first surface bearing on the peripheral area; ( Paragraph [84] in Levi teaches “the closing of brewing chambers 1a and 1b is sealed by a seal 6 between each chamber 1a and 1b and mobile plate 4.” Fig. 2 teaches a first surface of the seal 6 bearing on the lower face of the movable tray and another surface bearing on the peripheral area.
However, Levi is silent about the seal comprising two gaskets.
Francois teaches a composite annular seal comprising two gaskets in Fig. 1 and 4.)
PNG
media_image6.png
384
539
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 in Francois
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 seal in Levi as comprising two gaskets as taught in Francois. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to form “TIGHTNESS BETWEEN A FIXED ORGAN AND A MOBILE ORGAN IN TRANSLATION AND OR ROTATION” as taught in abstract in Francois.
and- a support comprising an upper face bearing on a second surface of the first gasket and a lower face bearing on a second surface of the second gasket. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
U cup teaches unloaded U-cups configured to hold second surface of a gasket on an upper face and second surface of the second gasket on a lower face.)
PNG
media_image7.png
1026
1758
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Screenshot of U cup
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the support as taught in U cup to hold gaskets in the machine in Levi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The unloaded urethane U-cup design provides an excellent heavy-duty seal for both piston or rod applications and works well in static and dynamic applications” as taught in page 1 in U cup.
Regarding claim 7,
The unit according to claim 5, wherein the second gasket is an O-ring. (Paragraph [85] in Levi teaches “Seal 6 is particularly shown in FIG. 2 in the form of an o-ring seal, as an example.”
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 second gasket as O-ring as taught in Levi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the closing of brewing chambers 1a and 1b is sealed by a seal 6 between each chamber 1a and 1b and mobile plate 4” as taught in paragraph [84].
Regarding claim 8,
The unit according to claim 5, wherein the first surface of the second gasket is configured to be applied on the two surfaces of the peripheral area having different orientations. (Francois teaches a composite annular seal comprising two gaskets in Fig. 4. The surface of the lower gasket is applied on the two surface having different orientations.)
PNG
media_image8.png
384
531
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 in Francois
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the seal on surfaces of different orientations as taught in Francois in the machine I Levi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to form “TIGHTNESS BETWEEN A FIXED ORGAN AND A MOBILE ORGAN IN TRANSLATION AND OR ROTATION” as taught in abstract in Francois.
Regarding claim 9,
The unit according to claim 5, wherein the upper face of the support includes a groove for mounting configured to mount the first gasket. (U cup teaches unloaded U-cups comprising groove to mount a gasket.)
PNG
media_image7.png
1026
1758
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Screenshot of U cup
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the support as taught in U cup to hold gaskets in the machine in Levi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The unloaded urethane U-cup design provides an excellent heavy-duty seal for both piston or rod applications and works well in static and dynamic applications” as taught in page 1 in U cup.
Regarding claim 10,
The unit according to claim 5, wherein the lower face of the support includes an area in the form of a fillet. (U cup teaches a fillet type lower face.)
PNG
media_image9.png
1026
1758
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Screenshot of U cup
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the support as taught in U cup to hold gaskets in the machine in Levi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The unloaded urethane U-cup design provides an excellent heavy-duty seal for both piston or rod applications and works well in static and dynamic applications” as taught in page 1 in U cup.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levi, Li, Francois, and U cup as applied in claim 5 above, and further in view of https://web.archive.org/web/20190327050441/https://www.grainger.com/category/fasteners/washers/, Mar 2019 (hereafter Washer).
The unit according to claim 5, wherein the first surface of the first gasket is planar. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Washer teaches planar surface of a gasket in screenshot below.)
PNG
media_image10.png
966
1772
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Screenshot of washer
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 first surface of first gasket as planar as taught in Washer in the machine in Levi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “Washers are multipurpose fasteners that are vital in a variety of applications” as taught in page 1 in Washer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/26/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-4, 11, 16, 17, 20 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection based on the amendment of claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN-107992103-A, abstract
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 at (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