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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/05/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10, 15, 19-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 15, and 20 are currently amended.
Claims 2, 6, 9, 11-14, 16-18 are canceled.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a lid selectively attachable to the top clothes basket of the bottom clothes basket via s strap” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 1, 15, and 20 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, and 15 recites “a lid selectively attachable to the top clothes basket or the bottom clothes basket via strap”. However, the specification fails to provide support for this limitation as such it is considered new matter .
Claim 20 recites “selectively placing a strapped lid on the top clothes basket or the bottom clothes basket”. However, the specification fails to provide support for this limitation as such it is considered new matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsay (US 5042674) in view of Kriesel (US 20100230307) , Huber (US 8695795), Apps (US 4823955) and Stravitz (US 7100999).
Regarding claim 1, Ramsay discloses, basket device comprising: a top clothes basket (Fig. 5; 30); and a bottom clothes basket (30c); wherein the top clothes basket and the bottom clothes basket each comprise at least one side wall (56), a bottom base component (58), and an open top to form a receptacle; a lid (32), a textured grip handle (Fig. 5; 88 has ribs on the underside which makes it textured grip) attached to each sidewall (88 is placed on each side wall) ,wherein the top clothes basket and the bottom clothes basket are attached together at the bottom base components.
However, Ramsay does not disclose, a lid attached to basket via a strap.
Kriesel is relevant to this issue and discloses a case with a lid (14) wherein the lid is secured a body
(12) via a strap (See annotated fig. below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ramsay to attach the lid to the body via strap as taught by Kriesel for the purpose of prevent losing the lid.
PNG
media_image1.png
591
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While Ramsay does not disclose the bottom base of the top clothes basket is elevated to a height from 30 to 35 inches from a ground level.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the bottom base of the top clothes basket is elevated to a height from 30 to 35 inches from a ground level, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (B)(IV-A)
However, Ramsay discloses the top cloths basket is attached to the bottom clothes basket using tongue and groove (Fig. 5, 10) , does not disclose, the top cloths basket is screwed to the bottom clothes basket to secure the top clothes basket to the bottom clothes basket.
Huber is relevant to this issue and shows that screw was an equivalent structure known in the art when attaching two bodies (Col. 8; line 25-30) . In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness-type rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06(II). Huber represents evidence that screws were art-recognized equivalent structures for tongue and groove(Col. 8; line 25-30). Therefore, because these two fastening mechanism were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute screws for tongue and groove. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. See MPEP 2144.06(II).
However, Ramsay does not disclose, “each of the top clothes basket and the bottom clothes basket comprise an image indicia”
Apps is in the field of endeavor and discloses, stacked containers wherein each of the basket comprise image indicia (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ramsay to incorporate each of the top clothes basket and the bottom clothes basket comprise an image indicia as taught by Apps for the purpose of allowing the user to organize/sort articles accordingly.
With regards to the limitation “wherein the top and bottom clothes baskets are high density polyethylene clothes baskets.” while Ramsay fails to disclose this limitation, Stravitz discloses the use of high density polyethylene when making containers and It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ramsay to make the baskets out of high density polyethylene as they are known to be cost effective and stiff material. 1
The preamble recites “An ergonomic clothes basket device that saves a user time and effort when transporting a plurality of clothes to and from a washer and dryer,” is considered to be intended use. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction See MPEP 2111.02 ("where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation"). See MPEP § 2111.02(II).
The limitation “lid selectively attachable to the top clothes basket of the bottom clothes basket via a strap” is considered to be intended use. Examiner asserts that the recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim. Herein, the container as modified has a lid attached to container via strap and it is considered to be capable of performing the limitation since the lid are removably attached and are attachable to either one of the basket.
The limitation “to elevate the top clothes basket to a height more easily reachable by the user while standing; and wherein the user can easily retrieve the plurality of clothes from the top clothes basket without having to bend over” is considered to be intended use. Examiner asserts that the recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim. Surely, the basket of Ramsay can be used for clothing, and there are users of a height who are able to pick plurality of clothes from the top clothes basket without having to bend over as claimed by the application.
With regards to the limitation “the top and bottom clothes baskets are oval in shape” is considered a matter of design choice. The specification recites “the clothes baskets 102, 104 are round in shape, but can be any suitable shape as is known in the art, such as square, rectangular, C-shaped, oval, etc., depending on the needs and/or wants of a user.” This establishes that there is no criticality associated with the shape of the container. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(IV). A change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04(I)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the top and bottom clothes baskets that are oval in shape since such modification is recognized as a matter of design choice, absent of any showing of unexpected results disclosed in the specification.
Regarding claim 3, Ramsay discloses, each of the top clothes basket and the bottom clothes basket comprises a first set of opposing side walls and a second set of opposing side walls. (See annotated fig. below)
PNG
media_image2.png
668
562
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Ramsay does not explicitly disclose, the top clothes basket and the bottom clothes basket is approximately 32 inches in height and each of the top clothes basket and the bottom clothes basket is approximately 24 inches in width.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ramsay to have the top clothes basket and the bottom clothes basket is approximately 32 inches in height and each of the top clothes basket and the bottom clothes basket is approximately 24 inches in width since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.2
Regarding claim 8, Ramsay as modified discloses, the ergonomic clothes basket device is an integral, one-piece component.
Regarding claim 10, Ramsay as modified discloses, the top clothes basket can be removed from the bottom clothes basket for convenient shipping and storage (fig. 5).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsay- Kriesel-Huber-Apps- Stravitz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kassab (US 20110095496).
Regarding claim 7, While Ramsay as modified does not explicitly disclose, the at least one side wall comprises a plurality of ventilation holes Kassab is in the field of endeavor and discloses a laundry basket wherein the at least one side wall comprises a plurality of ventilation holes (Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ramsay to incorporate a plurality of ventilation holes on at least one side wall as taught by Kassab for the purpose of maintaining proper airflow within the container.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsay (US 5042674) in view of Kriesel (US 20100230307) , Bently (US 8365943) and Gilligan (US 20210354870).
Regarding claim 15, Ramsay discloses, basket device comprising: a top clothes basket (Fig. 5; 30); and a bottom clothes basket (Fig. 5; 30a), wherein each of the top clothes basket and the bottom clothes basket is rectangular in shape (Fig. 5) and comprises a first set of opposing side walls and a second set of opposing side walls (as annotated in claim 3 above) , a bottom base component (58) , and an open top to form a receptacle; a handle (88) secured to each of the first set of opposing side walls and the second set of opposing side walls, wherein the top clothes basket and the bottom clothes basket are attached together at the bottom base components via a plurality of fasteners (Plurality of ridges; Col. 4; lines 50-65), wherein the top clothes basket can be removed from the bottom clothes basket for shipping and storage.
However, Ramsay does not disclose, a lid secured to basket via a strap.
Kriesel is relevant to this issue and discloses a case with a lid (14) wherein the lid is secured a body
(12) via a strap (See annotated fig. below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ramsay to attach the lid to the body via strap as taught by Kriesel for the purpose of prevent losing the lid.
PNG
media_image1.png
591
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While Ramsay does not disclose the bottom base of the top clothes basket is elevated to a height from 30 to 35 inches from a ground level.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the bottom base of the top clothes basket is elevated to a height from 30 to 35 inches from a ground level, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (B)(IV-A).
However, Ramsay as modified does not disclose, each of the top clothes basket and the bottom clothes basket are polylactic acid.
Bentley is relevant to the issue and discloses the use of Pla when making containers and It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ramsay to make the container out of PLA as is it known to be additive manufacture friendly and environmentally friendly.
Ramsay does not disclose, each of the top clothes basket and the bottom clothes basket are water- resistant coated.
Gilligan is in the field of endeavor and discloses, a stacked container wherein the containers are water-resistant coating.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ramsay to incorporate top clothes basket and bottom clothes basket are water- resistant coated as taught by Gilligan for the purpose of provide support and cushioning for the containers (para 68) as well as for keeping the container dry.
The preamble recites “An ergonomic clothes basket device that saves a user time and effort when transporting a plurality of clothes to and from a washer and dryer,” is considered to be intended use. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction See MPEP 2111.02 ("where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation"). See MPEP § 2111.02(II).
The limitation “lid selectively attachable to the top clothes basket of the bottom clothes basket via a strap” is considered to be intended use. Examiner asserts that the recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim. Herein, the container as modified has a lid attached to container via strap and it is considered to be capable of performing the limitation since the lid are removably attached and are attachable to either one of the basket.
The limitation “to elevate the top clothes basket to a height reachable by the user while standing; and wherein the user can easily retrieve the plurality of clothes from the top clothes basket without having to bend over.” is considered to be intended use. Examiner asserts that the recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim. Surely, there are users of a height who are able to pick plurality of clothes from the top clothes basket without having to bend over as claimed by the application.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsay- Kriesel-Bentley-Gilligan as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Apps (US 4823955).
Regarding claim 19, Ramsay does not explicitly disclose, each of the top clothes basket and the bottom clothes basket comprise an indicia.
Apps is in the field of endeavor and discloses, stacked containers wherein each of them has relatable indicia on the surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ramsay to incorporate relative indicia to each basket as taught by Apps for the purpose of allowing the user to organize/sort articles accordingly.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsay (US 5042674) in view of Huber (US 8695795), Kriesel (US 20100230307), Lamarche (US 20090057304) and Lorenz (US 7175040).
Regarding claim 20, Ramsay discloses, providing an elevated clothes basket comprising top clothes basket and bottom clothes basket attached together at a common base (Fig. 5); positioning the bottom basket on the ground (Fig. 5), placing a lid (32) on the basket.
Ramsay discloses the baskets attached together at a common base via a tongue and groove but does not explicitly disclose, that they are attached adhesively. Huber is relevant to this issue and shows that glue was an equivalent structure known in the art when attaching two bodies (Col. 8; line 25-30) . In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness-type rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06(II). Huber represents evidence that glue were art-recognized equivalent structures for tongue and groove(Col. 8; line 25-30). Therefore, because these two fastening mechanism were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute glue/adhesive for tongue and groove for attaching two bodies together. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. See MPEP 2144.06(II).
With regards to selectively placing a strapped lid to body, While Ramsay does not explicitly disclose the lid to be strapped, Kriesel is relevant to this issue and discloses a case with a lid (14) wherein the lid is secured a body (12) via a strap (See annotated fig. below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ramsay to attach the lid to the body via strap as taught by Kriesel for the purpose of prevent losing the lid.
PNG
media_image1.png
591
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As a result, the container as modified would have a lid that is selectively placed on either the top or bottom clothes basket.
While Ramsay does not disclose the bottom base of the top clothes basket is elevated to a height from 30 to 35 inches from a ground level.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the bottom base of the top clothes basket is elevated to a height from 30 to 35 inches from a ground level, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (B)(IV-A).
However, Ramsay as modified does not disclose, utilizing a pair of tactile gripped carrying handles mounted on the side of the elevated clothes basket
Lamarche is in the field of endeavor and discloses a container comprising a pair of tactile gripped handles secured to a first set of opposing side wall (Fig. 1; para 18, 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ramsay to incorporate a pair of tactile gripped handles secured to a first set of opposing side wall for ergonomic purpose.
However, Ramsay as modified does not disclose each clothes basket is polycarbonate.
Lorenz discloses a container wherein the container is made of polycarbonate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ramsay to make the baskets out of polycarbonate as they are known to be lightweight and impact resistant3.
Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. See MPEP 2112.02
Since the broadest reasonable interpretation of "providing" an element is making that element available for use (see the definition of providing at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/providing), this interpretation does not require machine implementation, does not result in the transformation of a particular article and essentially results in applicant's attempting to patent a general concept or abstract idea. In view of the factors addressed above, and in view of the fact that no factors seem to weigh in favor of patent eligibility, it is the examiner's position that the claimed invention is not eligible for patent protection. See MPEP 2106 (I).
The preamble recites “A method of elevating a laundry basket to prevent a user from having to bend over to ground level to retrieve a plurality of clothes or lift the laundry basket,” is considered to be intended use. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction See MPEP 2111.02 ("where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation"). See MPEP § 2111.02(II).
The limitation “positioning the elevated laundry basket on the ground, such that the user can retrieve the plurality of clothes from the elevated clothes basket without having to bend over and to transport the elevated clothes basket” is considered to be intended use. Examiner asserts that the recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim. Surely, there are users of a height who are able to pick plurality of clothes from the top clothes basket without having to bend over as claimed by the application.
The limitation “to selectively keep the plurality of clothes secured within the top clothes basket or the bottom clothes basket” is considered to be intended use. Examiner asserts that the recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim. Herein, the container as modified has a lid attached to container via strap and it is considered to be capable of performing the limitation since the lid are removably attached and are attachable to either one of the basket.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argues that the lid of Kriesel does not disclose nor contemplate a lid selectively attachable to the top clothes basket or the bottom clothes basket via a strap. The applicant points to paragraph 38 of the specification for support of this limitation. Firstly, paragraph 38 does not disclose, a lid being selectively attachable to a top or bottom container. Secondly, the claim requires the lid to be attachable to either one of the basket which is considered intended use. The container as modified has a lid that is attached via strap that is selectively attachable to either one of the container.
Applicants argument with regards to the sizing of the container is not found persuasive. It has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than a prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Lastly, the applicant argues that the prior art of Kriesel is not analogous art since it is a musical storage case not cloth basket. The examiner replies that the prior art of Kriesel is pertinent to the particular problem of attaching lid to container body. A person of ordinary skill in the art is expected to see how lids are attached to containers and that includes the prior art of Kriesel as it is pertain to the problem of securing a lid to container. Secondly, Kriesel explicitly discloses the carrier can be used for other articles “For example, in some circumstances the user may only need to transport a primary set of articles and in other circumstances, the user may need to transport the primary set of articles along with a number of accessories. In other circumstances, the nature of the items being transported may vary.” (Para 6). The case is not strictly built for musical instrument as alleged by the applicant.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following disclose containers accessible via two different planes, and in most cases the container is divided, which is relevant to the disclosed invention: US-2611499-A, US-4078686-A, US-0887097-A, US-8915395-B2, US-20020003144-A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANJIDUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7670. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 -5:00.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/SANJIDUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
1 https://parkwayjars.com/blog-1/common-uses-advantages-and-disadvantages-and-faqs-about-hdpe-plastic-packaging/
2 See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)
3 https://www.protolabs.com/materials/polycarbonate/