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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on January 19th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites, “between or from between”. Should read “between”.
Claim 19 recites “base”. Should read “base section”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Such claim limitations are:
In Claims 9: “device” is a generic placeholder coupled with the functional language “for fresh air supply”
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 9 recites limitation “device for fresh air supply” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, or material in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention. The Specifications only discloses that the “device for fresh air supply” contains a cooling coil for temperature control with no further details on how this part connects to the “device for fresh air supply”.
Claim 10 is rejected as it depends on rejected claim 9.
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.
Claims 7, and 9-11 are 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 7 recites that height or length of the skimming device can be adapted to correspond with the increased capacity of the steeping unit, however there is no structure claimed on how the height can be adapted to match the steeping unit. There are different structures and cooperative relationships that can achieve this therefore the claim is indefinite.
Claim 9 recites limitation “device for fresh air supply” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, or material that performs the entire claimed function. The Specifications only discloses that the “device for fresh air supply” contains a cooling coil for temperature control. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 10 is rejected as it depends on rejected claim 9.
Claim 11 recites a “method for expanding the steeping unit” followed by an adjusting step of “removing” the ring.” This is unclear as removing the ring would not expand the unit as required in the preamble. This unclarity makes the claim indefinite and therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Smith (US Patent No. 20040262306).
Regrading Claim 1, Smith teaches a steeping unit for steeping of grain (Abstract, A multi-sectioned container that can be utilized as a steeping unit), comprising a base section (Figure 1-2, Base Sections 14); a lid positionable over an opening in the base section(Figure 1-2 and paragraph 20 , Lid 11 can be positioned over base section 14); and at least one intermediate ring (Figure 1-2, Sections 13 and 12), which is removably insertable between the lid and the opening in the base section to adjust a capacity of the steeping unit in a stepwise manner (Figure 1-2 and Paragraph 22-23, Container is made up of is made up of three sections 12, 13, and 14. The sections can be added and removed to increase the size of container in step wise manner).
Regrading Claim 4, Smith teaches that the at least one intermediate ring have an inner wall that is essentially circular in cross-section (Figure 1-2, Sections 12 and 13 have circular walls).
Regrading Claim 11, Smith teaches a method for expanding the steeping unit in a malting plant (Abstract and Figure 1-2, A multi-sectioned container that can be utilized as a steeping unit where the capacity can be increased), the method comprising: by adjusting the capacity of the steeping unit in a stepwise manner by inserting or removing the at least one intermediate ring between or from between the opening in the base section and the lid (Figure 1-2 and Paragraph 22-23, Container is made up of is made up of three sections 12, 13, and 14. The sections can be added and removed to increase the size of container in step wise manner between the Lid 11 and base 14 section).
Regarding Claim 14, Smith teaches further comprising intermediate section between the base section and the lid (Figure 1-2, Sections 13 and 12 located between lid 11 and base section 14), wherein the intermediate section comprises the at least one intermediate ring (Figure 1-2, Sections 13 and 12).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2-3, 5, 8-9, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US Patent No. 20040262306) in view of Feng (CN Patent No. 2316320).
Regrading Claim 2, Smith fails to teach a product outlet arranged within the base section and below the opening in a direction of gravity.
Feng teaches a steeping unit for steeping of grain (Figure 1 and Paragraph 7, Soak Wheat Filter Cylinder 3 for grain processing) where a product outlet is arranged within the base section and below the opening in a direction of gravity (Figure 1, Discharge Port 22 in the lower section and in a direction of gravity).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith to incorporate a product outlet as stated in Feng. The Discharge port has a discharge door to control when the product is released from the apparatus (Paragraph 8-9, Discharge Port 22).
Regrading Claim 3, Smith teaches that the at least one intermediate ring are ring-shaped (Figure 1-2, Sections 12 and 13 are ring shaped).
Smith fails to teach that the base section is conical in the direction of the product outlet.
Feng teaches a steeping unit for steeping of grain (Figure 1 and Paragraph 7, Soak Wheat Filter Cylinder 3 for grain processing) where the base section is conical in the direction of the product outlet (Figure 1, Soak Wheat Filter Cylinder 3 is conical shape in the direction of Discharge Port 22).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith to incorporate a base section that is conical as stated in Feng. The Conical sections helps guide the product toward the discharge port so the product could be released from the apparatus (Figure 1, Conical Section).
Regrading Claim 5, Smith fails to teach that the at least one intermediate ring have an outer wall that is essentially hexagonal in cross-section.
Feng teaches a steeping unit for steeping of grain (Figure 1 and Paragraph 7, Soak Wheat Filter Cylinder 3 for grain processing) where at least one intermediate ring have an outer wall that is essentially hexagonal in cross-section (Figure 1, Soak Wheat Filter Cylinder 3 and the Insulating Cylinder 1 make up the inner and outer walls).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith in view of Feng by changing the shape of the outer wall of modified Smith, to be hexagonal in shape. The courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. “In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), MPEP § 2144.04-IVB.
Regrading Claim 8, Smith fails to teach that the lid comprises a product feed.
Feng teaches a steeping unit for steeping of grain (Figure 1 and Paragraph 7, Soak Wheat Filter Cylinder 3 for grain processing) where the lid comprises a product feed (Figure 1, Covered Feed Port 19 in the Upper Cover 24).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith to incorporate an outer wall as stated in Feng. The Upper Cover has feed port to control when the product is released into the apparatus (Paragraph 8-10, Feed Port 19).
Regrading Claim 9, Smith fails to teach that lid comprises a device for fresh air supply.
Feng teaches a steeping unit for steeping of grain (Figure 1 and Paragraph 7, Soak Wheat Filter Cylinder 3 for grain processing) where the lid comprises a device for fresh air supply (Figure 1 and Paragraph 11, The air inlet of the blower 11 is connected to the air inlet pipe 13 which is connect to the Soak Wheat Filter Cylinder 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith in view of Feng to incorporate a device for fresh air supply into the lid. The courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice.
Regarding Claim 15, Smith teaches that the base comprises a cylindroconical structure (Figure 1-2, Base Section 14 is cylindrical) and an intermediate section is fixedly attached to the base to extend the opening in the base (Figure 1-2, Sections 12 and 13 can be attached to the opening of Base Section 14), wherein the base section, the intermediate section and the lid define an initial capacity of the steeping unit (Figure 1-2, The Base Section 14 and Section 12 and 13 create the capacity of the container).
Smith fails to teach that the base section is conical in shape.
Feng teaches a steeping unit for steeping of grain (Figure 1 and Paragraph 7, Soak Wheat Filter Cylinder 3 for grain processing) where the base comprises a cylindroconical structure having a conical section and an intermediate section is fixedly attached to the base to extend the opening in the base (Figure 1, Soak Wheat Filter Cylinder 3 has an intermediate section between the conical shaped base and upper cover 24).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith in view of Feng by changing the shape of the base section of modified Smith, to be conical in shape. The courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. “In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), MPEP § 2144.04-IVB
Regarding Claim 16, Smith in view of Feng teaches at least one intermediate ring is removably insertable between the lid and the intermediate section to increase a capacity of the steeping unit from the initial capacity (Smith: Figure 1-2 and Paragraph 22-23, Container is made up of is made up of three sections 12, 13, and 14. The sections can be added and removed to increase the size of container in step wise manner between the Lid 11 and base 14 section).
Regarding Claim 17, Smith teaches that the intermediate section comprises a circular interior wall that matches a diameter of the opening in the base (Figure 1-2, Sections 12 and 13 have walls that are the same as the Base Section 14).
Smith fails to teach that the steeping unit has an exterior wall.
Feng teaches a steeping unit for steeping of grain (Figure 1 and Paragraph 7, Soak Wheat Filter Cylinder 3 for grain processing) with an exterior wall (Figure 1, Soak Wheat Filter Cylinder 3 and the Insulating Cylinder 1 make up the inner and outer walls).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith to incorporate an exterior wall as stated in Feng. The Insulating Cylinder helps maintain the temperature of the grains and protect the Soak Wheat Filter Cylinder (Paragraph 16 and Figure 1, Insulating Cylinder 1).
Regarding Claim 18, Smith in view of Feng teaches that at least one intermediate ring has a circular interior wall having a diameter that matches a diameter of the circular interior wall of the intermediate section (Smith: Figure 1-2, The Sections 12, 13, and 14 all have the same diameter and make up the intermediate section).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US Patent No. 20040262306) in view of Feng (CN Patent No. 2316320) and further in view of Smith (US Patent No. 20040262306 Embodiment 2).
Regarding Claim 19, Smith teaches a lower part that includes the base (Figure 1-2, Base Section 14), the lower part being directly or indirectly removably connectable to the lid (Figure 1-2 and Paragraph 20, Base section 14 can be attached to the lid by screw connection and are sealed) and the at least one intermediate ring being removably connectable to at least one of the lower unit or the lid by a screw connection (Figure 1-2 and Paragraph 20, Section 12 and 13 can be attached to the lid and base section 14 by screw connection and are sealed).
Smith fails to teach one intermediate ring being removably connectable to at least one of the lower unit with a seal.
Smith (Embodiment 2) teaches a seal (Paragraph 28, A Rubber Seal or O-Ring can be used between the three sections 22-24).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith in view of Feng to incorporate a seal as stated in Smith (Embodiment 2). The o-ring helps create a water tight seal between the three sections (Paragraph 28, O-ring).
Regarding Claim 20, Smith teaches that the at least one intermediate ring comprises at least two intermediate rings connectable to each other by a screw connection (Figure 1-2 and Paragraph 20, Section 12 and 13 can be attached together by screw connection and are sealed).
Smith fails to teach one intermediate ring being removably connectable to at least one of the lower unit with a seal.
Smith (Embodiment 2) teaches a seal (Paragraph 28, A Rubber Seal or O-Ring can be used between the three sections 22-24).
Claims 6-7 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US Patent No. 20040262306) in view of Feng (CN Patent No. 2316320) and further in view of Silbermann (US Patent No. 20150201651).
Regrading Claim 6, Smith in view of Feng fails to teach a skimming device.
Silbermann teaches a malting apparatus (Figure 1, Malting apparatus) where a skimming device (Figure 6b and Paragraph 23 and 96, Scrapers 91).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith in view of Feng to incorporate an adjustable skimming device as stated in Silbermann. The apparatus can include multiple beams with each beam containing one or more scrapers, which allows for customization when it comes to skimming (Paragraph 23, Scrapers).
Regrading Claim 7, Smith in view of Feng fails to teach a skimming device that is adjustable.
Silbermann teaches a malting apparatus (Figure 1, Malting apparatus) where a height or length of the skimming device can be adapted depending on the number of intermediate rings inserted between the lid and the opening in the base (Figure 6b and Paragraph 23 and 96, Scrapers 91 can be arranged at a common beam which can extend in the horizontal direction with their height adjustable to match the capacity malting material which reads as being able to adapt to the size of the container).
Regarding Claim 12, Smith in view of Feng fails to teach a skimming device that is operated fully automatically.
Silbermann teaches a malting apparatus (Figure 1, Malting apparatus) where a skimming device, where the skimming device is operated fully automatically (Figure 6a-b and Paragraph 91-92, During Operations the Dome 11 rotates and movers the Scrappers 91, reads as the skimming device operated automatically when apparatus is in operation).
Regarding Claim 13, Smith in view of Silbermann fails to teach skimming device that has a safety overflow
Feng teaches a steeping unit for steeping of grain (Figure 1 and Paragraph 7, Soak Wheat Filter Cylinder 3 for grain processing) with a safety overflow (Paragraph 12, An overflow pipe 20 with a valve is connected to the upper side of the wheat soaking filter cylinder 3. The lower end of the overflow pipe 16 is connected to a water filter cylinder 9).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith in view of Feng and Silbermann to incorporate a safety overflow into the skimming device. The courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US Patent No. 20040262306) in view of Feng (CN Patent No. 2316320) and further in view of Redding (US Patent No. 9988596).
Regrading Claim 10, Feng in view of Smith fails to teach a device for fresh air supply comprising a cooling coil.
Redding teaches a germination system (Abstract, Germination System) where the device for fresh air supply comprises a cooling coil configured to temperature-control fresh air (Col 12 Line 46-48 and Col 16 Line 9-11, Heat exchanger 116, which have coils, is responsible for bringing the air to the targeted temperature which also involves cooling the grains).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith in view of Feng to incorporate a cooling coil as stated in Redding. The heat exchanger cools the grains to a safe temperature for handling and unloading (Col 16 Line 5-15, Heat Exchanger).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed January 19th, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Smith
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZEH HICHAM AMIN whose telephone number is (571)272-4235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4:00 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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/HAMZEH HICHAM AMIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights