DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 01/15/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-6 remain rejected. Claims 7-20 remain withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/15/2025, except where otherwise stated.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffiths (US 20160143328 A1) in view of Merriam Webster (aerosol), Senopsys (Definitions of Flavor), Schich (DE 3826211 A1), Karau (US 20110217441 A1), Riddervold et al. (Effects of wood smoke particles . . .), Horner (US 20190160410 A1), and Toledo (Wood Smoke Components and Functional Properties).
Regarding claim 1, Griffiths teaches (Paragraph 0001, 0045-0046) methods for smoking food, comprising generating smoke, passing the smoke through a filter, to remove the one or more PAHs from the smoke, and into a chamber, and contacting filtered smoke with food in the chamber, wherein smoke is generated from a combustion material or fuel that can be combusted (heated) to yield smoke, wherein common materials used in the industry for generating smoke are: wood chips, wood dust, wood shavings, wood briquettes, logs, charcoal and charcoal briquettes, and, in operation of the invention, oak, hickory, cherry, apple and beech wood (organic material) are used successfully. Also, Griffiths teaches (Paragraph 0017) the treating of step may comprise contacting the smoke with a filter in gas phase. (The Examiner notes that the Applicant’s Specification states (Paragraph 0020) aerosol smoke is produced by heating organic material. Additionally, the plain meaning of “aerosol” (Merriam-webster.com) is a suspension of fine solid or liquid particles in gas. Therefore, the gas phase smoke of Griffiths, produced by the heating of wood/organic material is understood to be aerosol smoke.) Additionally, Griffiths teaches (Paragraph 0049) condensing moisture (water/liquid) out of the treated smoke is preferred for foods that would be adversely affected by an increase in water content. Furthermore, Griffiths teaches (Paragraph 0037, 0080), the filter may selectively remove particular components, such as benzo(a)pyrene, benz(a)anthracene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, two of these or all three, and the smoke produced or used in the methods contains reduced levels of PAH. Also, Griffiths teaches (Paragraph 0037) the smoke produced or used in the methods contains reduced levels of PAH while still imparting a smoky flavour (smoke aroma and flavor).
While Griffiths does not explicitly describe the aroma, aroma is understood to be a component of flavor. For example, Senopsys teaches (What is Flavor?) “flavor” refers to the combination of taste, aroma, mouthfeel and texture.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that retaining a smoky flavor would constitute retaining the smoke aroma as well. Additionally, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare the food to have a traditional smoke aroma and flavor, since many consumers prefer the flavor and aroma of smoked foods, and since a food with less and flavor and aroma would be less noticeable (e.g. not detected by smell), and therefore less appealing to the consumer or profitable to the producer.
Griffiths is silent on the step of condensing the aerosol smoke also reducing solids. Griffiths is further silent on filtering volatile organic compounds in said aerosol smoke after step b, thereby providing the food with reduced volatile organic compounds. Also, Griffiths does not explicitly state that preservative components are retained in said aerosol smoke.
Schich teaches (Claim 1) a method for smoking foodstuffs, in particular meat and fish products, in which the smoke is cooled and then fed into a smoking chamber, characterized in that foreign substances and solids are removed and discharged from the smoke during cooling by means of condensation, and that only the purified smoke is fed into the smoking chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Griffiths to also reduce solids during condensing as taught by Schich since each is directed to a method of smoking a food product, since condensing smoke to reduce solids is known in the art as shown by Schich, since condensing smoke to reduce solids allows foodstuffs with excellent taste properties and without harmful components to be produced (Schich, Paragraph 0004), since foreign substances such as carbon components, suspended solids, tar and resins are removed from the smoke before it is fed into the smoking chamber. (Schich, Paragraph 0006) where such solids can adversely affect the taste, texture, and nutritional value of the food product, or can adversely affect the appearance of the food product, making it undesirable to consumers, and since aromatic substances contained in the flue gas (smoke) are not separated during flue gas cleaning by condensation separation so smoked foods are not affected by harmful substances but only by the aromatic substances contained in the smoke, and smoked foods are of excellent taste quality (Schich, Paragraph 0006-0007).
Karau teaches (Paragraph 0001, 0010) a barbecue firebox and method of operation that prevents condensation of volatile organic compounds on meat, wherein the barbecue cooking apparatus including a duct is attached to a housing and forming a passageway for heated air and wood smoke. Karau further teaches (Paragraph 0025; Fig. 1 #100, 102, 108) wood gas generated by a fire is forced to pass through charcoal pan 102 prior to exiting firebox 100 through duct 108, wherein the wood gas is heated and burned as it passes through the coal bed supported by charcoal pan 102, and, in this manner, the volatile organic compounds are prevented from being deposited on the surface of the meat being cooked (i.e., filtering volatile organic compounds). Also, Karau teaches (Paragraph 0024) heat and wood flavoring is carried to a barbecue compartment through duct 108 positioned downstream of charcoal pan 102, (i.e., the smoke is immediately contacted with food after filtering of VOCs).
It has also been recognized in the art that VOCs have negative health effects and that it has been desirable to remove vocs from smoke.
For example, Riddervold et al. teaches (Background) pollutants from burning wood, including volatile organic compounds, may trigger cough, throat and mucosal irritation, can cause acute inflammation in the respiratory system, and may contribute to an increased incidence of asthma and allergic diseases observed after prolonged exposure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Griffiths to filter volatile organic compounds in the aerosol smoke to be exposed to food, thereby providing the food with reduced volatile organic compounds in view of Karau and Riddervold, since both Griffiths and Karau are directed to methods of smoking food products, wherein components of the smoke are filtered, since Griffiths teaches removing undesirable compounds from smoke prior to contact with food, since filtering of volatile organic compounds from smoke for food treatment, thereby providing the food with reduced volatile organic compounds is known in the art as shown by Karau, since pollutants from burning wood, including volatile organic compounds, may trigger cough, throat and mucosal irritation, can cause acute inflammation in the respiratory system, and may contribute to an increased incidence of asthma and allergic diseases observed after prolonged exposure (Riddervold et al., Background), so removing volatile organic compounds prior to contact with food would preserve the health of both food consumers and operators handling food in the smoking device, and since it is advantageous to prevent volatile organic compounds from being provided to food being cooked (Karau, Paragraph 0011).
Horner teaches (Paragraph 0038, 0043-0044, 0050, 0070) a method of operating smoke evacuation systems associated with hand-held instruments that produce smoke or cause smoke to be produced during use, wherein a fluid trap is provided to condense liquid vapor in the smoke and reduce the amount of fluid entering the filter or other components of smoke evacuation devices, wherein the fluid collected in the fluid trap may be water. Horner further teaches (Paragraph 0090) the filter comprises a carbon reservoir where gaseous contaminants such as volatile organic compounds are removed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Griffiths, as modified above, to filter the volatile organic compounds in the aerosol smoke after condensing the aerosol smoke as taught by Horner since both are directed to methods for treating smoke, since filtering the volatile organic compounds in aerosol smoke after condensing the aerosol smoke is known in the art shown by Horner, since, by reducing the total fluid content of the smoke and removing bulk liquid from the smoke, the usable life of mechanically coupled filters can be increased (Horner, Paragraph 0044), since the reduced fluid content within the smoke can protect the electrical components within or associated with the smoke evacuation device (Horner, Paragraph 0044), and since contacting the smoke with food immediately after filtering VOCs (i.e., all other smoke processing steps occur prior to filtering the VOCs) is known and obvious as shown above with regard to Karau.
Also, Toledo teaches (Page 59) the antimicrobial properties of smoke are well known and constitutes the primary role of smoke in food preservation, wherein all the constituents of smoke interact to bring about the antimicrobial effect, and phenolics, acetic acid, and carbonyls individually have antimicrobial activity but their combined effect is synergistic.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, that so long as at least some components of the smoke remain (and Griffiths only requires reduction, not total elimination of individual components), the smoke would necessarily retain preservative components. Furthermore, retaining preservative components would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to extend the shelf-life of smoked food and prevent the growth of harmful microorganisms.
Regarding claim 2, Griffiths teaches (Paragraph 0045) smoke is generated from a combustion material or fuel that can be combusted to yield smoke, wherein common materials used in the industry for generating smoke are: wood chips, wood dust, wood shavings, wood briquettes, logs, charcoal and charcoal briquettes, and, in operation of the invention, oak, hickory, cherry, apple and beech wood (hardwood) are used successfully, and therefore Griffiths discloses the claim limitation of “hardwood for smoke flavoring food”.
Regarding claim 3, Griffiths teaches (Paragraph 0049) condensing moisture (water/liquid) out of the treated smoke is preferred for foods that would be adversely affected by an increase in water content.
Also, as stated above with regard to claim 1, Horner teaches (Paragraph 0050) that the fluid condensed in the smoke evacuation device may be water, where a step of condensing aerosol smoke to reduce liquid water before filtering VOCs would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons stated above with regard to claim 1.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffiths (US 20160143328 A1) in view of Merriam Webster (aerosol), Senopsys (Definitions of Flavor), Schich (DE 3826211 A1), Karau (US 20110217441 A1), Riddervold et al. (Effects of wood smoke particles . . .), Horner (US 20190160410 A1), and Toledo (Wood Smoke Components and Functional Properties), and further in view of Shakhov (RU 2642469 C1).
Regarding claim 4, Griffiths, as modified above, is silent on smoke flavor compounds being added to said aerosol smoke.
Shakhov teaches (Paragraph 0008, Claim 1) producing smoked meat products with an internal feed of a combined smoking mixture into the product under pressure, wherein vapors of spicy-smoking flavorings (smoke flavor compounds) are mixed with a smoke-air mixture to produce a combined mixture which is fed to the product.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Griffiths, as modified above, to add smoke flavor compounds to the aerosol smoke as taught by Shakhov since both are directed to smoking food products with aerosol smoke, since adding smoke flavor compounds to aerosol smoke is known in the art as shown by Shakhov, since additional flavoring can improve the taste, aroma, and flavor of the smoke and the smoked food product to satisfy consumers and make the food more appealing, since adding the smoke flavor compounds to the smoke allows the flavor compounds to be carried by the smoke to contact the food without the need for direct application, and since some consumers will prefer smoked food products with more noticeable or stronger flavors.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffiths (US 20160143328 A1) in view of Merriam Webster (aerosol), Senopsys (Definitions of Flavor), Schich (DE 3826211 A1), Karau (US 20110217441 A1), Riddervold et al. (Effects of wood smoke particles . . .), Horner (US 20190160410 A1), and Toledo (Wood Smoke Components and Functional Properties), and further in view of Grandt (EP 0887019 A2).
Regarding claim 5, Griffiths, as modified above, is silent on smoke flavor compounds being added to said food.
Grandt teaches (Paragraph 0011, 0014) treating food with liquid smoke (smoke flavor compounds) and then with gaseous friction smoke, wherein the liquid smoke is sprayed onto the food in atomized form.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Griffiths, as modified above, to add smoke flavor compounds to the food as taught by Grandt since both are directed to smoking food products with aerosol smoke, since adding smoke flavor compounds to food is known in the art as shown by Grandt, since additional flavoring can improve the taste, aroma, and flavor of the smoked food product to satisfy consumers and make the food more appealing, since adding the smoke flavor compounds directly to the food ensures the desired amount of smoke flavor compounds are added to the food product, since some consumers will prefer smoked food products with more noticeable or stronger flavors, and since an initial smoking phase with liquid smoke (smoke flavor compounds) increases the relative humidity in the treatment chamber, which means that during the subsequent treatment with friction smoke, the smoke is absorbed much better by the food product, thus significantly improving the transfer of substances to the food product, resulting in shorter smoking times and thus an increased potential product throughput (Grandt, Paragraph 0011).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffiths (US 20160143328 A1) in view of Merriam Webster (aerosol), Senopsys (Definitions of Flavor), Schich (DE 3826211 A1), Karau (US 20110217441 A1), Riddervold et al. (Effects of wood smoke particles . . .), Horner (US 20190160410 A1), and Toledo (Wood Smoke Components and Functional Properties), and further in view of Zhu et al. (A critical review on VOCs adsorption. . .).
Regarding claim 6, Griffiths teaches (Paragraph 0021) suitable filters remove for removing PAHs from the smoke have a pore size of approximately 10 Angstroms (1 nm) or smaller, or approximately 7 Angstroms (0.7 nm) or smaller or approximately 6 Angstroms (0.6 nm) or smaller (microporous) can provide this filtering.
Griffiths is silent on removing volatile organic compounds with a microporous material.
As shown above, Karau teaches (Paragraph 0001, 0010) a barbecue firebox and method of operation that prevents condensation of volatile organic compounds on meat, wherein the barbecue cooking apparatus includes a duct is attached to a housing and forming a passageway for heated air and wood smoke. Karau further teaches (Paragraph 0025; Fig. 1 #100, 102, 108) wood gas generated by a fire is forced to pass through charcoal pan 102 prior to exiting firebox 100 through duct 108, wherein the wood gas is heated and burned as it passes through the coal bed supported by charcoal pan 102, and, in this manner, the volatile organic compounds are prevented from being deposited on the surface of the meat being cooked.
Furthermore, Zhu et al. teaches (Section 2.1.3, 2.2.3, 2.2.4) microporous materials including activated carbon fiber, clay, and silica gel can be successfully used to adsorb volatile organic compounds.
Therefore, as shown above, removal of gas compounds from smoke for food treatment with microporous materials is known from Griffiths, removal of VOCs from smoke for food treatment is known from Karau (and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons stated above with regard to claim 1), and remove of VOCs with microporous material is known in the art from Zhu et al.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Griffiths as modified above to provide microporous material as a component for removing or lowering volatile organic compounds (VOCs), since selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (See MPEP 2144.07), and microporous materials including are activated carbon fiber, clay, and silica gel are a known component for removal of volatile organic compounds as demonstrated above by Zhu et al., since pollutants from burning wood, including volatile organic compounds, may trigger cough, throat and mucosal irritation, can cause acute inflammation in the respiratory system, and may contribute to an increased incidence of asthma and allergic diseases observed after prolonged exposure (Riddervold et al., Background), so removing volatile organic compounds prior to contact with food would preserve the health of both food consumers and operators handling food in the smoking device, and since it is advantageous to prevent volatile organic compounds from being provided to food being cooked (Karau, Paragraph 0011).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-12, filed 01/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, these arguments have been made in view of amendments to the claims, and, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Griffiths (US 20160143328 A1) in view of Merriam Webster (aerosol), Senopsys (Definitions of Flavor), Schich (DE 3826211 A1), Karau (US 20110217441 A1), Riddervold et al. (Effects of wood smoke particles . . .), Horner (US 20190160410 A1), and Toledo (Wood Smoke Components and Functional Properties), as shown above.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument against the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1, that Griffiths does not suggest the removal of VOCs, nor does it address the removal of unwanted gas odors, the Examiner notes that the Applicant’s amended claims no longer recite the reduction of “distasteful gas odors”. Furthermore, while the Examiner acknowledges that Griffiths is silent on the filtering of volatile organic compounds, such a process is disclosed by Karau, and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Griffiths to filter volatile organic compounds in the aerosol smoke in view of Karau for the reasons stated above with regard to claim 1.
In response to the Applicant’s argument against the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1, that Singleterry is preoccupied by physically protecting the food being smoked from macroparticles such as wood ash, wood particles, and other carbon particulate and does so by including an upper metal mesh screen surrounding the water- holding cup, the Examiner notes that the Applicant’s argument is made in view of amendments to claim 1, and Singleterry is no longer relied upon. The condensing of solids from smoke is known and obvious in view of Schich for the reasons stated above with regard to claim 1.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Karau is not directed to or concerned with a method for smoking food, and nowhere in Karau is the smoking of food mentioned or alluded to, the Examiner maintains that Karau concerns smoking food. As stated above with regard to claim 1, Karau teaches (Paragraph 0001, 0010) a barbecue firebox and method of operation that prevents condensation of volatile organic compounds on meat, wherein the barbecue cooking apparatus including a duct is attached to a housing and forming a passageway for heated air and wood smoke. Karau subsequently refers to “wood-gas” but one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that the “wood-gas” of Karau generated by fire from burning wood (Karau, Paragraph 0024, 0025) comprises smoke.
The Applicant further argues that “Karau mentions that the combustion of wood and the baking atmosphere imparts the flavors therefrom to the meat being cooked: this is not smoking food (see, Background section of Karau vs. Background of the present application)”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, neither the Background Section of Karau nor the Present Application appear to present any strict definition of smoking that would be mutually exclusive.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that the problem that Karau attempts to fix is the deposition of VOCs on the meat being cooked and not VOCs removal from aerosol smoke used for smoking food, and that Karau is not directed to or concerned with the specifics of smoking food, but is simply concerned with baking/cooking food, and avoids the deposition of VOCs on the meat being cooked by fully combusting said VOCs before VOCs are being provided to the barbecue pit where the meat is being cooked, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Karau concerns a process of treating a food product with smoke. Though the exact intended use of VOCs in the process of Karau may not be identical to that of the Applicant, Karau is still in the field of the inventor’s endeavor (smoking food) and reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned (reduction of distasteful gas compounds in aerosol smoke).
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that the presently claimed invention provides a food smoking process in which an aerosol smoke is first condensed to reduce liquids and solids, and by first performing the condensing step, the removal of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) remaining in the gas phase is significantly more effective, while there is nothing in the cited prior art combination that suggests such a combination of steps, the Examiner notes that such arguments are made in view of amendments to the claims and the condensing the smoke before filtration of VOCs is obvious in view of the newly cited combination of references.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that there would have been no suggestion to one skilled in the art to combine the cited prior art in the manner proposed, since Griffiths is not concerned with VOCs and their reduction from aerosol smoke, and there is nothing in the other cited references that would suggest a need to modify Griffiths, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as shown above with regard to claim 1, filtering of volatile organic compounds from smoke for food treatment, thereby providing the food with reduced volatile organic compounds is known in the art as shown by Karau; pollutants from burning wood, including volatile organic compounds, may trigger cough, throat and mucosal irritation, can cause acute inflammation in the respiratory system, and may contribute to an increased incidence of asthma and allergic diseases observed after prolonged exposure (Riddervold et al., Background), so removing volatile organic compounds prior to contact with food would preserve the health of both food consumers and operators handling food in the smoking device; and it is advantageous to prevent volatile organic compounds from being provided to food being cooked (Karau, Paragraph 0011).
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Karau aims for the wood gas to be directed away from the food, and, therefore, modification of Griffiths to adopt the method of Karau would frustrate the primary purpose of the Griffiths method, the Examiner notes that Karau does not appear to indicate that the wood gas is directed away from the food. For example, as stated in the rejection of claim 1 above, Karau teaches (Paragraph 0025; Fig. 1 #100, 102, 108) wood gas generated by a fire is forced to pass through charcoal pan 102 prior to exiting firebox 100 through duct 108, wherein the wood gas is heated and burned as it passes through the coal bed supported by charcoal pan 102, and, in this manner, the volatile organic compounds are prevented from being deposited on the surface of the meat being cooked. Karau further teaches (Paragraph 0024) duct 108 leads to barbeque compartment (i.e., to the food). In another embodiment, Karau teaches (Paragraph 0027) duct 216 carries the heated air 214 from the burning wood 202 and charcoal 206 to a barbecue compartment (not explicitly shown) where the meat is cooked. Thus, modifying Griffiths in view of Karau would not frustrate the primary purpose of Griffiths method.
The Applicant also argues that claims 2-6 should be allowable as a result of depending upon claim 1. However, as shown above, claim 1 remains rejected under 35 USC 103. Consequently, claims 1-6 remain rejected under 35 USC 103.
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 AUSTIN P TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-2652. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. 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.
/AUSTIN PARKER TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792