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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant Remarks/ Amendments filed on November 13, 2025.
Claims 1, 13, and 20 are currently amended. Claims 5-6 have been canceled.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-5, filed November 13, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Klemmack (US 2023/0031937, hereinafter “Klemmack”) in view of Kumar et al. (US 2021/0229133, hereinafter “Kumar”).
Claim 1. Klemmack teaches: A recycling kiosk system, comprising:
a controller (see paragraphs 48-49);
a communications interface (see paragraph 53);
a user interface device configured to receive, from a user interacting with the user interface, user identification information associated with the user (see paragraph 36);
a kiosk housing including the user interface device and having a first aperture for receiving recyclable material, to identify an ID tag on a primary containment unit containing recyclable material and the controller associates the ID tag with the user account (see Figure 1 and paragraphs 29 and 36);
a conveyor system provided in the kiosk housing configured to transport the recyclable material from the first aperture along a defined transport path (see paragraph 28);
wherein the controller retrieves a user account via the communications interface based on the user identification information (see paragraph 36);
wherein the controller assigns a value to identified recyclable material and associates the ID tag with the user account (see paragraph 36); and
wherein the controller associates the value with the user account (see paragraph 36).
Klemmack does not explicitly teach an inclined conveyor system. Kumar teaches an inclined conveyor system (see paragraphs 117 and 118).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Klemmack and Kumar to utilize an inclined conveyor system as it can assist in the sorting process of different metal alloys as taught by Kumar (see paragraphs 117 and 118).
Claim 2. The combination of Klemmack and Kumar teach the limitations of claim 1. Klemmack further teaches: wherein the value is a monetary value and the controller associates the monetary value with the user account (see paragraph 36).
Claim 4. The combination of Klemmack and Kumar teach the limitations of claim 1. Klemmack further teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the identification system is an Al vision system configured to identify one or more of a material and a type of the recyclable material (see paragraphs 33-34).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Klemmack (US 2023/0031937) in view of Kumar et al. (US 2021/0229133) and further in view of Tvinnereim et al. (US 2004/0190765, hereinafter “Tvinnereim”).
Claim 3. The combination of Klemmack and Kumar teach the limitations of claim 1. That combination fails to expressly teach: comprising a printer configured to generate a receipt with the value assigned to the identified recyclable material. Nevertheless, such a feature is taught in the analogous prior art. Tvinnereim, for example, teaches such a feature (see Figure 2A feature 112; see further ¶ 25 teaching providing a receipt that “can be exchanged for cash” by the printer 112). Tvinnereim is analogous to Klemmack and Kumar, and the instant application because it relates to a reverse vending apparatus, i.e., a device for receiving empty bottles of glass or plastic (see, e.g., Tvinnereim Figure 1 and ¶ 25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to apply the known technique of providing a printer to print a receipt regarding the number of recyclables inserted (as disclosed by Tvinnereim) to the known method and apparatus that receives recyclable materials and identifies and properly sorts them (as disclosed by Klemmack and Kumar). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of providing a printer to print a receipt regarding the amount of recyclables inserted because the receipt could be related to the amount of recyclables received and could be “exchanged for cash” by the recycler, thereby incentivizing recycling (see Tvinnereim ¶ 25).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to apply the known technique of providing a printer to print a receipt regarding the number of recyclables inserted (as disclosed by Tvinnereim) to the known method and apparatus that receives recyclable materials and identifies and properly sorts them (as disclosed by Klemmack and Kumar), because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by applying the known technique of providing a printer to print a receipt regarding the number of recyclables inserted to the known method and apparatus that receives recyclable materials and identifies and properly sorts them, because predictably the printer can operate without affecting any of the other components). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Klemmack (US 2023/0031937) in view of Kumar et al. (US 2021/0229133) and further in view of Zeng et al. (US 2021/0178432, hereinafter “Zeng”).
Claim 7. The combination of Klemmack, and Kumar teach the limitations of claim 1. Zeng further teaches: comprising a second aperture configured to receive a primary containment unit and wherein the first aperture is configured to receive individual items of recyclable material (see, e.g., Figure 3B teaching that the first aperture, feature 120, is configured to receive individual items of recyclable material, and a second aperture, 121, that is the primary containment unit for non-recyclable materials).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Klemmack and Kumar with Zeng to have a first aperture configured for recyclable materials and a second aperture configured to receive a primary containment unit because it allows for the sorting and recycling of trash as taught by Zeng (see paragraph 40).
Claim 8. The combination of Klemmack, and Kumar teach the limitations of claim 7. Zeng further teaches: comprising a containment unit having a first area for storing one or more primary containment units and a second area for storing one or more individual items of recyclable material (see, e.g., Figure 3B teaching that the first aperture, feature 120, is configured to receive individual items of recyclable material, and a second aperture, 121, that is the primary containment unit for non-recyclable materials).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Klemmack and Kumar with Zeng to have a first area for storing one or more primary containment units and a second area for storing one or more individual items of recyclable material because it allows for the sorting and recycling of trash as taught by Zeng (see paragraph 40).
Claim 9. The combination of Klemmack, and Kumar teach the limitations of claim 7. Zeng further teaches: wherein the identification system comprises a sorting system configured to transport one or more individual items of recyclable material to a first storage unit and one or more primary containment units to a second storage unit (see, e.g., Figure 3B teaching that the first aperture, feature 120, is configured to receive individual items of recyclable material, and a second aperture, 121, that is the primary containment unit for non-recyclable materials; see further ¶s 126-128 teaching a baffle 131 that is controlled by motor 130 and operates in response to a control signal based on the recognition of whether the material is a recyclable material, which would go to the first storage unit 120, or non-recyclable material, which would go to the second storage unit 121).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Klemmack and Kumar with Zeng to have a sorting system configured to transport one or more individual items of recyclable material to a first storage unit and one or more primary containment units to a second storage unit because it allows for the sorting and recycling of trash as taught by Zeng (see paragraph 40).
Claim 10. The combination of Klemmack, and Kumar teach the limitations of claim 1. Zeng further teaches: wherein the controller monitors an amount of processed recyclable material and communicates the amount of processed material to a web-based server via the communications interface (see, e.g., ¶s 97-101 teaching using a counting program to count the amount of recyclable trash items placed into the machine, and if a threshold is exceeded, a control signal is sent to a cloud server that the recyclables need to be taken away).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Klemmack and Kumar with Zeng wherein the controller monitors an amount of processed recyclable material and communicates the amount of processed material to a web-based server via the communications interface because it allows for the sorting and recycling of trash as taught by t (see paragraph 40).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Klemmack (US 2023/0031937) in view of Kumar et al. (US 2021/0229133) and further in view of Fick (US 2009/0243369, hereinafter “Fick”).
Claim 11. The combination of Klemmack and Kumar teach the limitations of claim 1. That combination fails to teach; however, analogous reference Fick teaches: wherein the housing is configured to be moved from a first location to a second location via a transportation vehicle (see, e.g., Figure 1 and ¶s 19 and 23-24 teaching a mobile recycling system that is a tow trailer that can be moved from one place to another by tow hitch 2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Klemmack and Kumar in view of Fick to make it transportable, such as via a tow trailer, because this would allow “for the collection of recyclable material and refuse in any location a tow trailer can be placed” (see Fick ¶ 4).
Claim 12. The combination of Klemmack, , Kumar and Fick teach the limitations of claim 11. Fick further teaches: wherein the housing is disposed within a trailer, the trailer including a hitch for coupling the trailer to the transportation vehicle (see, e.g., Figure 1 and ¶s 19 and 23-24 teaching a mobile recycling system that is a tow trailer that can be moved from one place to another by tow hitch 2). The rationale for altering Klemmack and Kumar in view of Fick is provided in claim 11 above.
Claims 13-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Whittier (US 2006/0167580, hereinafter “Whittier”) in view of Klemmack (US 2023/0031937).
Claim 13. Whittier teaches: A recycling kiosk system, comprising:
a kiosk housing (see, e.g., Figure 2 and ¶s 10 and 29-39 teaching an apparatus for processing recyclable containers as well as ¶ 114 teaching that the invention can utilize graphical user interfaces for users to interface with the unit, though Examiner notes that this is further addressed below);
a hopper for receiving recyclable material (see, e.g., Figure 2 feature 210 and ¶s 28, 29, and 32 teaching input platform 210 that receives the recyclable material; see alternatively ¶ 21 teaching a hopper for storage);
one or more containment units corresponding to the one or more types of the recyclable material (see, e.g., ¶s 21, 70, and 80-89 teaching ultimate placement of the materials in bins);
a sorting system configured to place an item of recyclable material in one or more of the containment units corresponding to an identified type of the item of recyclable material (see, e.g., Figure 1 features 120, 150, 160, and 180 teaching determining the type of recyclable material, i.e., the “defining characteristic,” and directing the container to the appropriate device and bin; see also, e.g., Figure 2 feature 250 teaching a processor that, as taught in ¶s 43, 47, and 50-62 takes the obtained information regarding the identity of the material and controls the apparatus to route the material along a length of the conveyor belt to a specific gate and bin); and
an illumination system configured to illuminate the recyclable material (see, e.g., ¶s 35-37 teaching illuminating the recyclable material with a path of light; see further ¶s 44-45 further teaching light reflection and mirrors to scan the materials);
an inclined conveyor system configured to transport the recyclable material from the hopper to the sorting system (see, e.g., ¶s 34, 59, and 71 teaching that the conveyor path 220 may be slightly inclined to use gravity to force the container against a pusher); and
wherein the hopper, the vision system, the sorting system, and the inclined conveyor system are provided in the kiosk housing and wherein the vision system and illumination system are provided perpendicular to the inclined conveyor system (see, e.g., Figure 2 teaching that the hopper 210, conveyor belt 220A/230, the sorting into bins 265A-C, and the vision and illumination system 235A-B (i.e., light emitting and receiving devices) are all enclosed within the kiosk/apparatus; see further ¶s 51-62 teaching gates 265A-265D into which the appropriate materials are pushed as determine by the processor 250, ¶s 35-37 that features 235A and B are light emitting and receiving devices, respectively, ¶s 32-34 that path 220 with pushers 230 and drive means 231 and 232 may be toothed belts, i.e., a conveyor system, that propels the materials up an incline; Examiner notes that the illumination and vision system are perpendicular to the inclined conveyor system as shown in Figure 2).
Whittier does not explicitly teach a vision system configured to identify, from at least one image, one or more types of the recyclable material, the vision system comprising one or more cameras configured to capture the at least one image of the recyclable material and wherein a field of view of the one or more cameras includes a width and a length of the inclined conveyor system. Klemmack teaches a vision system configured to identify, from at least one image, one or more types of the recyclable material, the vision system comprising one or more cameras configured to capture the at least one image of the recyclable material and wherein a field of view of the one or more cameras includes a width and a length of the inclined conveyor system (see Figure 1 and paragraphs 29-30 and 40-41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Whittier and Klemmack to utilize a vision system configured to identify, from at least one image, one or more types of the recyclable material, the vision system comprising one or more cameras configured to capture the at least one image of the recyclable material and wherein a field of view of the one or more cameras includes a width and a length of the inclined conveyor system because the vision system can identify objects seen in an image as being recyclable and non- recyclable as taught by Klemmack (see paragraph 41).
Claim 14. The combination of Whittier and Klemmack teaches the limitations of Claim 13. Whittier further teaches: The system of claim 13, comprising a return conveyor system for transporting unidentified recyclable material from the sorting system to the hopper for further processing (see, e.g., ¶s 49 and 66 and Figure 1 features 120, 130, and 140 teaching returning rejected containers, i.e., those not found to have the appropriate defining characteristics, to the user/operator).
Claim 15. The combination of Whittier and Klemmack teaches the limitations of Claim 13. Whittier further teaches: The system of claim 13, wherein the sorting system comprises one or more robotic sorting devices (see, e.g., Figure 2 feature 250 teaching a processor that, as taught in ¶s 43, 47, and 50-62 takes the obtained information regarding the identity of the material and controls the apparatus to route the material to a specific gate and bin).
Claim 16. The combination of Whittier and Klemmack teaches the limitations of Claim 13. Whittier further teaches: The system of claim 13, wherein the sorting system comprises one or more stationary sorting devices disposed along a length of the conveyor configured to remove the recyclable material from the conveyor system (see, e.g., Figure 2 feature 250 teaching a processor that, as taught in ¶s 43, 47, and 50-62 takes the obtained information regarding the identity of the material and controls the apparatus to route the material along a length of the conveyor belt to a specific gate and bin).
Claim 17. The combination of Whittier and Klemmack teaches the limitations of Claim 16. Whittier further teaches: The system of claim 16, comprising a guide configured to divert the recyclable material into one or more single profile conveyors of the conveyor system (see, e.g., Figure 2 feature 250 teaching a processor that, as taught in ¶s 43, 47, and 50-62 takes the obtained information regarding the identity of the material and controls the apparatus to route the material along a length of the conveyor belt to a specific gate and bin).
Claim 20. Whittier teaches: A method for recycling, comprising the steps of:
receiving, in a recycling system housing, recyclable material (see, e.g., Figure 2 and ¶s 10 and 29-39 teaching an apparatus for processing recyclable containers; see also, e.g., Figure 2 feature 210 and ¶s 28, 29, and 32 teaching input platform 210 that receives the recyclable material);
illuminating, with an illumination system in the recycling system housing, the recyclable material (see, e.g., ¶s 35-37 teaching illuminating the recyclable material with a path of light; see further ¶s 44-45 further teaching light reflection and mirrors to scan the materials);
processing the recyclable material with a vision system provided in the recycling system housing (see, e.g., Figure 1 features 120, 150, 160, and 180 teaching determining the type of recyclable material, i.e., the “defining characteristic,” and directing the container to the appropriate device and bin; see also, e.g., Figure 2 feature 250 teaching a processor that, as taught in ¶s 43, 47, and 50-62 takes the obtained information regarding the identity of the material and controls the apparatus to route the material along a length of the conveyor belt to a specific gate and bin);
identifying a type of the recyclable material (see, e.g., Figure 1 features 120, 150, 160, and 180 teaching determining the type of recyclable material, i.e., the “defining characteristic,” and directing the container to the appropriate device and bin; see also, e.g., Figure 2 feature 250 teaching a processor that, as taught in ¶s 43, 47, and 50-62 takes the obtained information regarding the identity of the material and controls the apparatus to route the material along a length of the conveyor belt to a specific gate and bin);
assigning a monetary value to the recyclable material based on the identified type of the recyclable material (see, e.g., ¶ 103 teaching assigning an amount of deposit for each container returned by the customer and transferring that value to the consumer’s debit card);
transmitting the user identification information and the monetary value of the recyclable material to a web-based server via a communications interface (see, e.g., Figure 10 and ¶s 100-102 teaching that the acts described in, e.g., ¶s 103-110 where it is taught that a user account can be credited for the amount of recyclable materials including as taught in ¶ 107 sending signals, can be performed via networks and the internet);
identifying a user account associated with user identification information (see, e.g., ¶ 107 teaching checking the debit transaction with stored information to determine the validity of the user identification information); and
associating the monetary value of the recyclable material with the user account (see, e.g., ¶ 103 teaching assigning an amount of deposit for each container returned by the customer and transferring that value to the consumer’s debit card).
Klemmack further teaches:
receiving user identification information from a user interface device, wherein the user identification information is associated with a user interacting with the user interface device (see paragraph 36)
processing the recyclable material with a vision system provided in the recycling system housing, wherein the vision system comprises one or more cameras configured to capture at least one image of the recyclable material, wherein a viewing axis of the one or more cameras is substantially orthogonal to a transport path direction of an inclined conveyor system for conveying the recyclable material along a transport path direction (see Figure 1 and paragraphs 29-30 and 40-41); and
identifying, based on the at least one image, a type of the recyclable material (see paragraph 41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Whittier and Klemmack to utilize a vision system configured to identify, from at least one image, one or more types of the recyclable material, using a vision system comprises one or more cameras configured to capture at least one image of the recyclable material, wherein a viewing axis of the one or more cameras is substantially orthogonal to a transport path direction of an inclined conveyor system for conveying the recyclable material along a transport path direction because the vision system can identify objects seen in an image as being recyclable and non- recyclable and provide financial incentive to user for recycling objects as taught by Klemmack (see paragraphs 36 and 41).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Whittier (US 2006/0167580) in view of Klemmack (US 2023/0031937) and further in view of Krishnamurthy et al. (US 2018/0016096, hereinafter “Krishnamurthy”).
Claim 18. The combination of Whittier and Klemmack teaches the limitations of Claim 17. That combination fails to expressly teach: The system of claim 17, comprising a vision system configured to identify contaminated items of the recyclable material. Nevertheless, such a feature is taught in the analogous prior art. Specifically, Krishnamurthy teaches such a limitation (see, e.g., at least Krishnamurthy ¶s 53, 66-68, 72 teaching using cameras or other techniques such as a load sensor or a millimeter wave sensor to determine if an object that ordinarily would be recyclable is too contaminated, e.g., by the presence of liquids or food or grease, to recycle according to local regulations). Krishnamurthy is analogous to Whittier, Klemmack, and the instant application because it relates to automatically sorting recyclable waste to an appropriate bin by image analysis (see Krishnamurthy Figures 1A, 1B, 2, and 3 teaching the apparatus; see further, e.g., ¶ 2 regarding automatic sorting and ¶s 7-13 regarding the sensors and analysis of the type of waste).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to apply the known technique of using the vision detection to further detect contamination (as disclosed by Krishnamurthy) to the known kiosk that receives recyclable materials and identifies and properly sorts them (as disclosed by Whittier and Klemmack). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of using the vision detection to further detect contamination because proper segregation of actually recyclable items from non-recyclable items would save time and expense in the recycling process and decrease contamination of the commingled, otherwise recyclable items (see Krishnamurthy ¶ 4) as well as would aid in compliance with local regulations (see, e.g., Krishnamurthy ¶s 66-68).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to apply the known technique of using the vision detection to further detect contamination (as disclosed by Krishnamurthy) to the known kiosk that receives recyclable materials and identifies and properly sorts them (as disclosed by Whittier and Klemmack), because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by including an additional capability of recyclable item identification, i.e., whether it is contaminated and thus not appropriate for recycling, in a kiosk that identifies and sorts recyclables). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claim 19. The combination of Whittier, Klemmack, and Krishnamurthy teaches the limitations of Claim 18. Krishnamurthy further teaches: The system of claim 18, comprising a sorting system configured to place a contaminated item of recyclable material in one or more containment units corresponding to contaminated material (see Krishnamurthy ¶s 53, 66-68, and 72 teaching that if an object that might otherwise be recyclable is determined by the detection system, such as the use of cameras, to be “contaminated” and therefore unrecyclable then the material is placed with other contaminated items in a landfill bin). The rationale for altering Whittier and Klemmack in view of Krishnamurthy is provided in Claim 18 above.
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 SHAHID R MERCHANT whose telephone number is (571)270-1360. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684