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 .
This office action is in response to the application filed on October 14, 2022. The earliest effective filing date of the application is October 16, 2015.
Priority
The present application is a 371 National Stage Application of PCT/IN2016/050353 which has a filing date of October 17, 2016.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 45 – 55, in the reply filed on October 20, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search burden because Groups I and II only differ in their subclass, and that independent claims 27, 36, and 45 have identical claim elements. Applicant’s argument has been carefully considered and it is persuasive. The Requirement for Restriction of claims 27 – 55 has been withdrawn. Claims 27 – 55 are examined below.
Status of Application
The amendment filed October 20, 2025 with the Response to Restriction Requirement has been entered. The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 27 – 55
Withdrawn claims: None
Previously cancelled claims: 1 – 26
New claims: 47 – 55
Claims currently under examination: 27 – 55
Claim Interpretation
Claim 27 recites in the preamble “A method of reducing the glycemic load of food”. MPEP § 2111.02.II teaches, “[i]f 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.” In the instant case, the noted preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the claimed method.
Claim 36 recites in the preamble “A method of reducing the glycemic load and increasing fiber content of food”. MPEP § 2111.02.II teaches, “[i]f 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.” In the instant case, the noted preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the claimed method.
Claim 45 recites in the preamble “A method of preparing a food product for consumption by a diabetic subject”. MPEP § 2111.02.II teaches, “[i]f 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.” In the instant case, the noted preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the claimed method. Therefore, the preamble does not limit the claim, and the food product produced by the method of claim 45 is inherently suitable for consumption by a diabetic subject.
Claim Objections
Claims 29, 31, 38, 40, 50 and 51 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 29, 38, and 50 recite “moisture content in the range of 40-60%” which should be “moisture content in the range of 40-60 wt%” or something similar to explicitly state that the % is a weight percentage.
Claim 31, 40, and 51 recites “jackfruit flour in the range of 10%-99%” which should be “jackfruit flour in the range of 10 wt%-99 wt%” or something similar to explicitly state that the % is a weight percentage.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 30 – 33, 39 – 42, 46 – 48, and 51 – 53 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 30 recites “the flour or dough is a fortified flour or dough” which renders the claim indefinite. The jackfruit flour or dough of claim 27 consists of i) particles of jackfruit flesh, ii) particles of jackfruit seeds, iii) particles of jackfruit strands, and iv) moisture. The transitional phrase “consisting of” excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim. See MPEP § 2111.03.II. The instant specification states "fortified flour" refers to flour (such as wheat for instance) to which various nutrients or other flours are added to improve its nutritive value ([0029]). The definition of fortified flour is in contrast with the definition of the jackfruit flour or dough, rendering the scope of claim 46 indefinite. For the purpose of examination of claim 30, the “consisting” phrase is interpreted to be “comprising”, which allows for additional components to be present in the jackfruit flour or dough, allowing it to be “fortified”.
Claim 39 recites “the flour or dough is a fortified flour or dough” which renders the claim indefinite. The jackfruit flour or dough of claim 36 consists of i) particles of jackfruit flesh, ii) particles of jackfruit seeds, iii) particles of jackfruit strands, and iv) moisture. The transitional phrase “consisting of” excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim. See MPEP § 2111.03.II. The instant specification states "fortified flour" refers to flour (such as wheat for instance) to which various nutrients or other flours are added to improve its nutritive value ([0029]). The definition of fortified flour is in contrast with the definition of the jackfruit flour or dough, rendering the scope of claim 46 indefinite. For the purpose of examination of claim 39, the “consisting” phrase is interpreted to be “comprising”, which allows for additional components to be present in the jackfruit flour or dough, allowing it to be “fortified”.
Claim 46 recites “the flour or dough is a fortified flour or dough” which renders the claim indefinite. The jackfruit flour or dough of claim 45 consists of i) particles of jackfruit flesh, ii) particles of jackfruit seeds, iii) particles of jackfruit strands, and iv) moisture. The transitional phrase “consisting of” excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim. See MPEP § 2111.03.II. The instant specification states "fortified flour" refers to flour (such as wheat for instance) to which various nutrients or other flours are added to improve its nutritive value ([0029]). The definition of fortified flour is in contrast with the definition of the jackfruit flour or dough, rendering the scope of claim 46 indefinite. For the purpose of examination of claim 46, the “consisting” phrase is interpreted to be “comprising”, which allows for additional components to be present in the jackfruit flour or dough, allowing it to be “fortified”.
Claim 47 recites “reduced glycemic load” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “reduced” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, any glycemic load in the food product is considered “reduced glycemic load”.
Claim 48 recites “increased fiber content” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “increased” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, any fiber content in the food product is considered “increased fiber content”.
Claims 51 – 53 recite the limitation "the fortified flour or dough". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, “the fortified flour or dough” is interpreted to establish that the food product produced by claim 45 is a fortified flour or dough.
Claims 31 – 33 and 40 – 42 are rejected as dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 27 – 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slimak (U.S. Patent No. 5,789,012) in view of Adepeju et al. (Functional and pasting characteristics of breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis) flours. African Journal of Food Science. Vol 5. Iss 9. Pp 529 – 535. (2011) – IDS Filed on October 23, 2025) and Patil et al. (Estimation of pectin content in Jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus). The Asian Journal of Horticulture. Vol 6. Iss 2. Pp. 536 – 537. (2011)).
Regarding claims 27, 36, and 45, Slimak teaches methods of making hypoallergenic flours from fruits such as jackfruit and methods of making food comprising said flours (Abstract; col. 40, lines 8 – 60).
Flour
Slimak teaches a method of making breadfruit flour comprising the steps of:
(a) peeling firm, green breadfruit under running water, removing any spots, and other undesirable areas;
(b) rinsing briefly in distilled water; removing excess water; not soaking;
(c) shredding to desired size, place on glass or metal trays;
(d) air drying at 145 °F for 8 – 12 hours, preferably 10 hrs;
(e) comminuting shreds into a moderately fine flour product (col. 79, Example 163).
Slimak is silent with respect to precisely what portions of the breadfruit, aside from the undesirable peel, are included in the flour.
Adepeju also teaches about making breadfruit flour. Adepeju teaches the breadfruit used to make the whole flour was cleaned, peeled, and sliced, where no interior section was removed (p. 530, Preparation of breadfruit flour). This illustrates that the whole flour is flour made from all the internal components of the source, minus the inedible hull/husk (i.e. outer protective covering).
Slimak and Adepeju are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely, flours made from fruits of the Artocarpus genus (i.e., jackfruit and breadfruit). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have prepared the breadfruit flour with the all of the internal components of the source, minus the hull or husk, as taught by Adepeju in the method of Slimak because Adepeju provides that it was known for all of the internal components of the breadfruit, minus the hull or husk, to have been used and published at the time of filing, which means it was within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the internal components of the breadfruit, minus the hull or husk, for use in making breadfruit flour because it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Slimak does not teach the breadfruit flour of Example 163 is made with jackfruit.
Adepeju provides a method of making whole flour from a fruit with a similar structure to jackfruit which is cleaned, peeled, and sliced, wherein none of the flesh, seed or strands are removed before making the flour with the entire interior section (p. 530, Preparation of breadfruit flour). The figure below illustrates the structural similarity of jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus) and breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis).
PNG
media_image1.png
350
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
190
253
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus) Breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis)
In the case of jackfruit, the outer shell would be the rind, whereas the internal components would be the seeds, avrils/flesh, and rags/strands, as shown above. These interior parts are similar to those in the breadfruit, as shown above.
Since Slimak teaches making whole flours from starchy fruit from the Artocarpus genus (i.e., jackfruit and breadfruit), it would be reasonable to expect that jackfruit flour would consist of all the interior parts of the fruit: flesh (avrils), jackfruit seeds and jackfruit strands, as claimed, because Adepeju teaches that all the interior parts of fruit from the Artocarpus genus are used to make whole flour.
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to further modify the method of making breadfruit flour to replace the breadfruit with jackfruit because Adepeju teaches the use of all the interior parts of fruit from the Artocarpus genus (i.e., jackfruit and breadfruit) as being suitable for similar intended uses, including methods of making whole flours from fruit of the Artocarpus genus (i.e., jackfruit and breadfruit). See § MPEP 2144.07. Furthermore, MPEP § 2144.06.II states an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). One of ordinary skill in the art would have substituted breadfruit with jackfruit before the effective filing date of the application because jackfruit, like breadfruit, is a fruit of the Artocarpus genus, with similar anatomy. Additionally, it would have been obvious to try substituting breadfruit with jackfruit because Slimak explicitly states the flours of the instant invention may be made from jackfruit (Abstract; col. 40, lines 8 – 60).
By following the modified method of Slimak, the resulting jackfruit flour consists of:
i) particles of jackfruit flesh,
ii) particles of jackfruit seeds,
iii) particles of jackfruit strands, and
iv) moisture.
Nutritional Value and Properties of Whole Jackfruit Flour
Slimak and Adepeju are silent with respect to the nutritional composition of the jackfruit flour.
Patil teaches as a jackfruit ripens, the pectin content decreases as it converts to sugar (p. 536, paragraph 7; p. 537, paragraph 1; Table 1). Patil teaches the ripeness of a jackfruit is a significant indicator to the specific nutritional content of a jackfruit. Therefore, it would have been within the one of ordinary skill in the art’s ability before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected a jackfruit with a specific ripeness to produce a jackfruit flour with the desired sweetness and pectin (i.e., soluble fiber) content.
The instant specification concurs that jackfruit ripeness affects its nutritional content ([00187]). Furthermore, the instant specification shows that flours produced from jackfruit fruits, seeds, and strands alone are able to achieve the precisely claimed nutritional profile, indicating jackfruit at a certain ripeness may produce such flours ([00188], Tables 1 and 2).
While Slimak and Adepeju do not teach the flour comprises the precisely claimed nutritional profile, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the ripeness of the jackfruit used to produce the flour in the modified method of Slimak during routine optimization to find the jackfruit flour with the desired sweetness and soluble fiber (i.e., pectin) content. MPEP §2144.05(II) states where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The precisely claimed nutritional composition of:
about 0.3-1.5 w/w% total fats only from the jackfruit flesh, jackfruit seeds, jackfruit strands or combinations thereof; wherein total fats do not comprise detectable levels of saturated fats;
about 7-9 w/w% protein only from the jackfruit flesh, jackfruit seeds, jackfruit strands or combinations thereof, and
about 78-82 w/w% of carbohydrates only from the jackfruit flesh, jackfruit seeds, jackfruit strands or combinations thereof, consisting of:
about 12-16 w/w% of dietary fibers only from the jackfruit flesh, jackfruit seeds, jackfruit strands or combinations thereof, consisting of: about 3 to 6 w/w% soluble fiber only from the jackfruit flesh, jackfruit seeds, jackfruit strands or combinations thereof, about 8 to 12 w/w% insoluble fiber only from the jackfruit flesh, jackfruit seeds, jackfruit strands or combinations thereof;
about 3 to 11 w/w% of sugar only from the jackfruit flesh, jackfruit seeds, jackfruit strands or combinations thereof; and
other carbohydrates, only from the jackfruit flesh, jackfruit seeds, jackfruit strands or combinations thereof;
would thus be obvious.
Flour Particle Size
Slimak teaches the flour may have a particle size from 0.001 to 0.02 inches (i.e., 25.4 – 508 µm – col. 26, lines 21 – 33; col. 38, lines 40 – 45).
The range of jackfruit flour particle sizes, 25.4 – 508 µm, as disclosed by Slimak, overlaps with the claimed range of 200 – 1000 µm. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Contacting Flour with Food
Slimak teaches an exemplary method of making a sweet potato pancake mix comprising mixing 453g flour, 8.7g salt, and 10.7g sweet potato baking powder (col. 44, Example 6).
While Slimak does not teach the flour is the modified jackfruit flour of Slimak, MPEP § 2144.06.II states an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). One of ordinary skill in the art would have substituted the generically recited flour with the modified jackfruit flour of Slimak before the effective filing date of the application because the modified jackfruit flour of Slimak, like the generically recited flour, is a composition known to be suitable to use as a flour.
By mixing (i.e., contacting) 453g of the modified flour of Slimak (i.e., said flour or dough composition) with 8.7g salt and 10.7g sweet potato baking powder (i.e., food), the modified flour of Slimak (i.e., said flour composition) makes up 95.9 wt% of the pancake mix.
Regarding claims 28, 37, and 49, Slimak teaches the flour has a moisture content of 3 – 5% (col. 38, lines 40 – 45).
Regarding claims 29, 38, and 50, the instant specification states in an embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a process of preparing jackfruit flour as described herein, said process further comprising the step of reconstituting said jackfruit flour with water to obtain reconstituted jackfruit flour having moisture content in the range of about 40-60 % ([0073]).
Slimak teaches custard-type products (i.e., reconstituted flours) may be produced with the modified jackfruit flour of Slimak (col. 33, lines 13 – 14). Slimak teaches when flour and water are combined in proportions ranging from 1:1 to 1:30 (i.e., 50 – 96.8 wt% water) and heated with stirring until gelatinized to a thick paste-like glue and subjected to blending in a high speed blending device with the addition of oils in proportions ranging from 0:1 (i.e., no oil) to 3:1, this process produces white, creamy fluids of various thicknesses with properties similar to evaporated milk, which when allowed to stand with or without cooling, will solidify to produce products with properties very similar to custards (co. 33, lines 13 – 24).
The range of water (i.e., moisture) wt% in the custard (i.e., reconstituted flour), 50 – 96.8 wt%, as disclosed by Slimak, overlaps with the claimed range of 40 – 60 wt%. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claims 30, 39, and 46, the instant specification states "fortified flour" refers to flour (such as wheat for instance) to which various nutrients or other flours are added to improve its nutritive value ([0029]).
Slimak teaches any of the flours described may generally be mixed with each other as well as any other more conventional flours such as wheat, corn, millet, milo, soy, lentil, and the like (col. 38, lines 64 – 67; col. 39, lines 1 – 4).
Regarding claims 31, 40, and 51, the modified pancake mix of Slimak as described above is interpreted to be a fortified flour.
Regarding claims 32, 41, and 52, Slimak teaches any of the flours described may generally be mixed with each other as well as any other more conventional flours such as wheat, corn, millet, milo, soy, lentil, and the like (col. 38, lines 64 – 67; col. 39, lines 1 – 4). One of ordinary skill would have combined jackfruit flour with any of the recited flours above, including, for example, wheat flour, while mixing the ingredients for the modified pancake mix of Slimak to form a pancake mix (i.e., fortified flour) comprising wheat flour and 10 – 95.9 wt% jackfruit flour.
Regarding claims 33, 42, and 53, Slimak teaches it is within the scope of the invention to include conventional additives and additional ingredients including but not limited to dried vegetable juices (i.e., whole vegetable extracts or extracts of parts thereof), hydrophilic gum, sodium carboxymethylcellulose, hydroxymethylcellulose, karaya gum, algin, agar, carrageenan, mucilages, and gums (i.e., gums – col. 38, lines 10 – 39).
Regarding claims 34, 43, and 54, the modified method of Slimak as taught above teaches a method of making jackfruit flour comprising the steps of:
(a) peeling firm, green jackfruit (i.e., obtaining jackfruit) under running water, removing any spots, and other undesirable areas (i.e., isolating a combination of jackfruit flesh, seeds, and strands from undesirable areas such as jackfruit hull);
(b) rinsing briefly in distilled water; removing excess water; not soaking;
(c) shredding to desired size, place on glass or metal trays:
(d) air drying at 145 °F for 8 – 12 hours, preferably 10 hrs;
(e) comminuting shreds into a moderately fine flour product (i.e., grinding the combination of jackfruit flesh, seeds, and strands).
With respect to the particle size to which the jackfruit flour is ground, Slimak teaches the flour may have a particle size from 0.001 to 0.02 inches (i.e., 25.4 – 508 µm – col. 26, lines 21 – 33; col. 38, lines 40 – 45).
The range of jackfruit flour particle sizes, 25.4 – 508 µm, as disclosed by Slimak, overlaps with the claimed range of 200 – 1000 µm. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
With respect to the limitation that the obtained jackfruit has seeds which will slip out of the fruit when cut by half, it would be reasonable to expect that similar components have similar functionality. MPEP § 2112.01.I states where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In this case, the jackfruit obtained by Slimak and the jackfruit obtained in claim 54 are substantially identical in structure, therefore they inherently have the same properties, including the functionality of having seeds which will slip out of the fruit when cut by half.
Furthermore, the instant specification states jackfruit parts for preparation of flour were physically assessed and selected based on maturity level when the fruit does not have a sweet taste, has a neutral aroma, and has hard seeds which will slip out of the fruit when cut by half ([00187]). Therefore, the precisely claimed seed behavior requires a certain maturity of the fruit based on ripeness, wherein the seeds will slip out of the fruit when cut in half.
The modified method of Slimak does not discuss the ripeness of the jackfruit, however, in this case, the teaching of the use of jackfruit encompasses jackfruit that is ripe or unripe.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a jackfruit with the specifically claimed type of ripeness, wherein the seeds will slip out of the fruit when cut in half, as claimed, in the method of Slimak because in this specific case the various permutations of types of jackfruit in the generic are so small (ripe or unripe) that the teaching is as comprehensive and fully as if it had written the name of each permutation. See MPEP § 2144.08.II.4 and MPEP § 2143.I.E.
Regarding claims 35, 44, and 55, the modified method of Slimak teaches drying the jackfruit flesh, seeds, and strands prior to grinding to produce a flour (col. 80, Example 163). Slimak teaches the flour has a moisture content of 3 – 5% (col. 38, lines 40 – 45).
Regarding claim 47, while any glycemic load in the food product is considered “reduced glycemic load”, it is noted that Figure 1 of the instant application shows jackfruit flour has a lower glycemic load relative to white rice or whole wheat roti ([0019]; Figure 1).
Because jackfruit flour is known to have a glycemic load, the food product of Slimak has reduced glycemic load.
Regarding claim 48, because jackfruit flour inherently comprises fiber, the food product of Slimak has increased fiber content.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARK JULIA MORENO whose telephone number is (571)272-2337. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 - 4:30 M - F.
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, Emily Le can be reached at (571) 272-0903. 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.
/L.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793