DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 8, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant is thanked for their April 8, 2026 response to the Office Action filed January 15, 2026. The amendment has been entered and, accordingly, claims 1, 5, and 13 have been amended. Claim 3 has been cancelled. Claims 1-2 and 4-17 are currently pending in this application.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 5, and 13 have overcome the previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) and those rejections are therefore withdrawn.
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: “an air mover” in claim 13, which is being interpreted as a fan, as described in Applicant’s specification (page 6 line 26 and page 7 line 3), or equivalent.
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 § 102
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 1-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Publication 2015/0362196 by Chen et al (hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a filter (Abstract, baffle assembly 10) for filtering cooking juice particles from air circulating within a cooking apparatus (referenced filter is capable of being used for this intended use), wherein the filter (Fig 1 baffle assembly 10; particularly baffle section 12) is configured to be mounted on the cooking apparatus such that a base plate (Fig 5B and Fig 8; in particular, the base walls 18A of baffle section 12 which can be interpreted as being in a plane) of the filter is in a plane parallel with a plate direction (DP) (the plane is that which includes 18A and the plate direction being parallel with this plane), the plate direction having a component in a vertical direction (Fig 6A, filter shown in a use position with plate direction having a vertical component), wherein the filter comprises:
the base plate (Fig 5B base walls 18A of channels 18 in lower baffle section 12), wherein the base plate comprises one or more openings for circulating air to pass through the filter (Fig 5B spacing 22 between channels 18; paragraph [0026] line 11-13), wherein the base plate is shaped to create a tortuous path for the circulating air to pass through the one or more openings (Fig 5B air flow shown with arrows; paragraph [0030]), such that the cooking juice particles entrained by the circulating air passing through the one or more openings collect on the filter (paragraph [0037] line 1-4); and
one or more projecting plate portions projecting from the base plate (Fig 4 and Fig 8, projections 18B at edges of channels 18), the one or more projecting plate portions extending partially from at least one upper corner to lateral edges of respective openings of the one or more openings in the base plate (Figs 5A and 5B, each projecting plate portion 18B of lower baffle channels 18 extends from an upper corner of an opening 22 and to lateral edge of opening 22), wherein each of the one or more projecting plate portions partially overlaps the one or more openings in a direction parallel with the plane of the base plate (Fig 8 projecting plate portions 18B shown at least partially overlapping openings 22), and wherein the base plate comprises one or more channelling portions extending in the plate direction (Fig 5B channels 18), and wherein the one or more channelling portions form one or more surfaces for cooking juices collecting on the base plate to flow in the plate direction (Fig 5A; paragraph [0036]-[0037]).
Please note that 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 (MPEP 2173.01 I). Accordingly, where claim 1 recites “extending partially from at least one upper corner to lateral edges of respective openings,” “extending partially” is interpreted to mean that a part of the projecting plate portions extend as described, that is from at least one upper corner (of respective openings) to lateral edges of respective openings in the base plate.
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses the filter of claim 1 (see details in claim 1 rejection above), wherein the one or more projecting plate portions project away from the plane of the base plate (Fig 5B).
Regarding claim 4, Chen discloses the filter of claim 2 (see details in claim 2 rejection above), wherein the one or more channelling portions are provided between a pair of the one or more openings and/or the one or more projecting plate portions (Fig 5B and Fig 8 channels 18, particularly channel base 18A, between openings 22 and projecting plate portions 18B).
Regarding claim 5, Chen discloses the filter of claim 1 (see details in claim 1 rejection above), wherein the one or more channelling portions of the filter are arranged to create one or more continuous surfaces for the cooking juices to flow over from one of the one or more openings to below another of the openings (Fig 4 and Fig 5A show the continuous surfaces of channel base wall 18A; paragraph [0037], channel(s) 18 provide surfaces for grease to flow over from one of openings 22 to trough 62, which is below each of the openings).
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses the filter of claim 1 (see details in claim 1 rejection above), wherein the filter is configured to interact with a drip tray at a lower end of the filter, the drip tray for receiving the cooking juices that have flowed down the filter (Fig 6A drainage trough 62; paragraph [0037] line 20-24).
Regarding claim 8, Chen discloses the filter of claim 6 (see details in claim 6 rejection above, wherein the filter comprises an upstream side (bottom of Fig 5B) and a downstream side (top of Fig 5B), and wherein an opening of one or more openings into the drip tray extends between the upstream side and the downstream side of the base plate such that the cooking juices flowing over the upstream side and the downstream side of the filter enters the drip tray (Fig 5B holes 19 drain cooking juices from at least the upstream side and juices from the downstream side would also drain downward into trough 62).
Regarding claim 9, Chen discloses the filter of claim 6 (see details in claim 6 rejection above), wherein the one or more channelling portions of the filter (channels 18, particularly base walls 18A) are configured to create the one or more continuous surfaces for the cooking juices to flow over from one or more of the openings to the drip tray (Fig 4 shows channels 18 with a continuous surface; paragraph [0026] line 18-20; paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 10, Chen discloses the filter of claim 1 (see details in claim 1 rejection above), wherein the one or more openings extend principally in the plate direction (DP) (Fig 5B, openings 22 extend through the base plate in the plate direction).
Regarding claim 11, Chen discloses the filter of claim 1 (see details in claim 1 rejection above), wherein each of the one or more openings are spaced apart from another opening in a lateral direction of the filter (Fig 5B openings 22 are spaced apart from one another in a direction perpendicular to the base plate).
Please note that 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 (MPEP 2173.01 I). Accordingly, where claim 11 recites “each of the one or more openings is spaced apart from one another opening in a lateral direction of the filter,” “a lateral direction of the filter” is interpreted to mean “a direction perpendicular to the plate direction” as stated in the Applicant’s specification (page 4 line 14-15).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of US Patent No 6,454,825 issued to Cheimets et al (hereinafter “Cheimets”).
Regarding claim 7, Chen discloses the filter of claim 6 (see details in claim 6 rejection above). But Chen does not disclose that the drip tray is integrally formed with the filter.
However, Cheimets teaches a baffle filter (Abstract; Fig 1) with a drip tray (Fig 1 through 16) wherein the drip tray is integrally formed with the filter (col 3 line 8-10). Cheimets teaches that this is advantageous because it is less expensive and less complicated to install than separate components and it prevents the components from being separated or lost (col 1 line 43-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filter of Chen by forming the drip tray integral to the filter in order to reduce expense and simplify installation and prevent components from becoming separated or lost.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen.
Regarding claim 12, Chen discloses the filter of claim 1 (see details in claim 1 rejection above). Chen does not explicitly disclose that the one or more openings are arcuate in the plane of the base plate.
However, it would have been obvious to modify the filter of Chen by forming the one or more openings such that they are arcuate in the plane of the base plate, since doing so would produce a predictable and equally desirable result. It has been held (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47) that mere change in shape/orientation has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04 VI-B). Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No 10,383,477 issued to Payen et al (hereinafter “Payen”) in view of Chen.
Regarding claim 13, Payen discloses a cooking apparatus (Title) comprising:
a chamber to receive food items to be cooked (Fig 2 food receiver 2; col 4 line 29-30);
an air mover arranged to one side of the chamber, to circulate air around an interior of the cooking apparatus through the chamber (Fig 2 generating means 3 for generating air flow provided by fan 15, air flow shown with arrows; col 9 line 59-64);
a heater arranged to the one side of the chamber, to heat the air circulated by the air mover (Fig 2 heat generating element 13; col 9 line 39-42);
and a filter mounted on the cooking apparatus between the chamber and the heater (col 10 line 16-18, a filter can be provided at 6A).
But Payen does not explicitly disclose that the filter is mounted such that a base plate of the filter is in a plane parallel with a plate direction (DP) having a component in a vertical direction, wherein the base plate comprises one or more openings for circulating air to pass through the filter, wherein the base plate is shaped to create a tortuous path for the circulating air to pass through the one or more openings, such that cooking juice particles suspended within the circulated air collect on the filter, wherein the base plate comprises one or more channelling portions extending along edges of the one or more openings in the plate direction, and wherein the one or more channelling portions form one or more continuous surfaces for cooking juices collecting on the base plate to flow in the plate direction.
However, Chen teaches a filter (Fig 1 baffle assembly 10) for filtering grease from cooking (paragraph 0003]) mounted such that a base plate of the filter (Fig 5B and Fig 8; the base wall(s) 18A of baffle section 12 which can be interpreted as being in a plane) is in a plane parallel with a plate direction (DP) having a component in a vertical direction (Fig 6A), wherein the base plate comprises one or more openings for circulating air to pass through the filter (Fig 5B spacing 22; paragraph [0026] line 11-13), wherein the base plate is shaped to create a tortuous path for the circulating air to pass through the one or more openings (Fig 5B air flow shown with arrows), such that cooking juice particles suspended within the circulated air collect on the filter (paragraph [0037] line 1-4), wherein the filter comprises one or more projecting plate portions projecting from the base plate (Fig 4 and Fig 8, projections 18B at edges of channels 18), the one or more projecting plate portions extending partially from at least one upper corner to lateral edges of respective openings of the one or more openings in the base plate (Figs 5A and 5B, each projecting plate portion 18B of lower baffle channels 18 extends from an upper corner of an opening 22 and to lateral edge of opening 22), wherein each of the one or more projecting plate portions partially overlaps the one or more openings in a direction parallel with the plane of the base plate (Fig 8 projecting plate portions 18B shown at least partially overlapping openings 22), and wherein the base plate comprises one or more channelling portions extending along edges of the one or more openings in the plate direction (Fig 5B base plate 18A makes up base of channel 18 to channel grease), and wherein the one or more channelling portions form one or more surfaces for cooking juices collecting on the base plate to flow in the plate direction (paragraph [0036]-[0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cooking apparatus of Payen by using for the filter that taught by Chen. The use of such types of filters, known as baffle filters, are known in the art, as are the advantages thereof. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the filter of Chen since such filters are durable, long-lasting, easy to clean, effectively trap and collect grease particles, and allow for easy removal of the grease. They may also offer advantages in fire safety and noise reduction compared to other filters.
Please note that 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 (MPEP 2173.01 I). Accordingly, where claim 13 recites “extending partially from at least one upper corner to lateral edges of respective openings,” “extending partially” is interpreted to mean that a part of the projecting plate portions extends as described, that is from at least one upper corner (of respective openings) to lateral edges of respective openings in the base plate.
Regarding claim 14, Payen/Chen discloses the cooking apparatus of claim 13 (see details in claim 13 rejection above, including motivation for one of ordinary skill to modify). Chen further teaches a drip tray arranged to receive the cooking juices flowing in the plate direction (DP) (Fig 6A drainage trough 62; paragraph [0037] line 20-24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, having modified the cooking apparatus of Payen with the filter of Chen to further include the drip tray taught by Chen in order to collect the grease from the filter so that it can be contained and removed.
Regarding claim 15, Payen/Chen discloses the cooking apparatus of claim 14 (see details in claim 14 rejection above, including motivation for one of ordinary skill to modify). Chen further teaches that an opening of the one or more openings into the drip tray is arranged relative to the filter such that the cooking juices flowing over an upstream surface and a downstream surface of the base plate are received by the drip tray (Fig 5B holes 19 drain cooking juices from upstream side and juices from the downstream side would also drain downward into trough 62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, having modified the cooking apparatus of Payen with the filter of Chen, that an opening of the one or more openings into the drip tray would be arranged relative to the filter such that the juices flowing over the upstream and downstream surface of the base plate are received by the drip tray, so that the drip tray can efficiently collect grease captured by the filter, allowing the grease to be easily contained and removed.
Regarding claim 16, Payen/Chen discloses the cooking apparatus of claim 13 (see details in claim 13 rejection above, including motivation for one of ordinary skill to modify). Payen discloses that the cooking apparatus further comprises a removable basket within which the food items are contained during cooking (Fig 2 receptacle 2A; Fig 5 and col 6 line 40-43, 2A shaped as a basket and contains food for cooking; col 15 line 20-21, basket is removable).
Regarding claim 17, Payen/Chen discloses the cooking apparatus of claim 13 (see details in claim 13 rejection above, including motivation for one of ordinary skill to modify). Payen discloses that the cooking apparatus further comprises a lid (Fig 1 lid 8C) comprising a window to enable a user to view the food items within the chamber, when the lid is closed during cooking (Fig 1 viewing zone 12 in lid 8C; col 9 line 9-14).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the 35 USC 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) rejection of claim 1, Applicant has argued, on page 8-9, that “I. Chen fails to anticipate "the one or more projecting plate portions extending partially from at least one upper corner to lateral edges of respective openings of the one or more openings in the base plate." Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the projecting plate portions, 18B of Chen, extend at least partially from an upper corner of the opening 22 to lateral edges of the opening 22 in the base plate, which is made up of base walls 18A. Examiner Annotated Figure A below further illustrates this. Furthermore, Applicant’s argument that the side walls 18B of Chen “do not originate from the base plate” is unfounded, as Fig 5B and Fig 8 of Chen clearly shows each of the side walls 18B projecting from a point at which it is connected to the base plate 18A.
PNG
media_image1.png
448
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Figure A, from Figure 5A of Chen, showing the base plate, opening, and projecting plate portion
Applicant further argues, on page 9-11 that “II. Chen fails to anticipate ‘each of the one or more projecting plate portions partially overlaps the one or more openings in a direction parallel with the plane of the base plate’." Examiner respectfully disagrees. The projecting plate portions, 18B, project from the base plate 18A at an angle such that the projecting plate portions extend in a direction with a component in a direction perpendicular to the base plate (in Fig 8 of Chen, the vertical direction of the figure), but also with a component in a parallel direction to the base plate (the horizontal direction of Fig 8) so that the projecting plate portion extends, at least partially, overlapping the opening. Applicant has further argued that “the base walls do not form a continuous base plate, but instead are separate walls attached to the frame and hence cannot be equated to the claimed ‘base plate’ 102” and that since “the sidewalls 18B do not separate the grease from the airstream, the sidewalls cannot be equated to the claimed ‘projecting plate portions’.” However, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a continuous base plate and projecting plate portions separating grease from the airstream) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to the rejection of claim 13 under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues, on page 12-13 that, since Chen fails to teach or suggest “’one or more projecting plate portions projecting from the base plate, the one or more projecting plate portions extending partially from at least one upper corner to lateral edges of respective openings of the one or more openings in the base plate, wherein each of the one or more projecting plate portions partially overlaps the one or more openings in a direction parallel with the plane of the base plate,’ as recited in amended independent claim 13,” the combination of Payen and Chen would not teach claim 13, as amended. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Since Payen teaches the cooking apparatus except for the details of the filter, and Chen teaches the details of the filter, as discussed in the rejection and in the response to claim 1 arguments, the claimed limitations are taught by the combination of Payen and Chen.
Applicant further argues that:
Further, Chen's filter is designed for ventilator systems to separate grease from the air by passing the air upward through the serpentine paths created by baffle channels 18 and 26. These serpentine paths slow down the air to help separate grease from the air. In contrast, Payen's apparatus uses a flow-around air path that requires continuous airflow for efficient and even cooking of food. If Chen's filter were used in Payen's apparatus, the centrifugal fan of Payen would be required to draw air through the baffle channels 18 and 26, which would reduce airflow velocity. This reduced airflow velocity would affect Payen's intended purpose to provide effective heat transfer, rapid cooking, and even heating of food. Thus, a person of skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Payen and Chen.
However, these arguments are unpersuasive. It is noted that any filter placed in the air flow path, including the one already disclosed by Payen for use in the apparatus, would likely reduce the velocity of airflow at the filter location. There is no evidence that the filter of Chen would further reduce the velocity of airflow. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that a reduced airflow velocity due to the serpentine airflow through the filter at the intake 6A of Payen, would be counter to Payen’s intended purpose. In fact, Payen discloses that the air flow through the apparatus uses a deliberately sinuous path of air from the food towards the intake 6A (at which the filter would be positioned) to maximize the time that the hot air dwells in inside the food receiver, “thereby working in favor of excellent heat exchange between the food 100 and the flow of air 4” (col 6 line 1-9). Furthermore, a filter such as Chen’s, which allows for the easy removal of grease from the apparatus, would have clear advantages. One of ordinary skill would easily recognize the importance of preventing the oil and grease from reaching components such as the fan and the heater, thus improving their function, preventing excess smoke and unpleasant smells, and reducing fire hazards. The oil and grease collected by the referenced filter could be easily removed and discarded by the user.
Although the invention disclosed in the accompanying application is not identical to the cited references, the claims as written are still too broad to overcome the previously relied upon prior art. It is recommended that Applicant further amend the claims to include additional structural elements and/or features to endeavor to overcome the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amy E Carter whose telephone number is (703)756-5894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached on 571-272-9059. 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.
/AMY E CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights