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 proposed amendments filed 11/25/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome each and every claim objection previously set forth.
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 14-17 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 has been amended with the addition of defining an arcuate end edge in the receptacle and an arcuate end edge in the frame. These new limitations are not found in the specification as filed and the Examiner is unsure of the specific shaping requirements of the new claim language. The proposed amendments to claim 14 are therefore new matter and are rejected. The Examiner will attempt to interpret the claim language to forward prosecution. Dependent claims 5-17 are rejected for being dependent from a rejected 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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0191212 (Yoon hereinafter) in view of US 6138692 (Kobos hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Yoon teaches a dryer that discloses a front bulkhead having an inlet portion projecting into an interior of a clothes dryer drum (Figure 1B, front bulkhead 17a with inlet for drum 18), to define an access opening thereto (Evident from Figure 1B), the inlet portion defining a receptacle with a generally vertical surface (Evident of Figure 1B and the generally vertical section at the air inlet 172), the generally vertical surface defining a ventilation port extending therethrough, the ventilation port being free of mesh (The air inlet 172 will ventilate the drum and inherently have port for the air to flow and there is no mention or figure of the mesh).
Yoon is silent with respect to an actuator mount located on an outer face of the generally vertical surface and the actuator mount configured to receive a ventilation actuator for controlling airflow through the ventilation port.
However, Kobos teaches a ventilation system for a household appliance that similarly prevents odor that discloses an actuator mount located on an outer face of a generally vertical surface (Figures 2 and 5 with actuator 38 and mounting seen in Figure 5) and the actuator mount configured to receive a ventilation actuator for controlling airflow through the ventilation port (Evident from Figure 5 of Kobos). The resultant combination would utilize the ventilation cover (36 of Kobos) with the ventilation port of Yoon such that the port can be set in an open or closed position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ventilation port of Yoon with the ventilation actuator of Kobos to prevent excessive build-up of undesirable atmospheric conditions within the appliance and therefore leading to odors or molding.
Regarding claim 11, Yoon’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Yoon and Kobos would further disclose that the ventilation actuator is controllable between an open state in which the ventilation actuator allows for passive ventilation of the drum through the ventilation port, and a closed state in which the ventilation actuator seals the ventilation port to prevent the passive ventilation (Positions of the vent valve 36 seen in Figure 5 of Kobos as applied to 172 of Yoon).
Claims 2-5, 7, 8, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0191212 (Yoon) in view of US 6138692 (Kobos) and further in view of US 9527638 (Yoo hereinafter).
Regarding claim 2, Yoon’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect to a filter assembly comprising a wire mesh and a frame formed around the periphery of the wire mesh, wherein the receptacle is configured to receive the filter assembly such that the filter assembly covers the ventilation port.
However, Yoo teaches a filter assembly for mitigating odor that discloses a filter assembly comprising a wire mesh and a frame formed around the periphery of the wire mesh (Figure 4 with frames of 80 and 90 surrounding the interior porous [mesh] 81/91), wherein the receptacle is configured to receive the filter assembly such that the filter assembly covers the ventilation port (Resultant combination would the ventilation port of Yoon to receiver the filter of Yoo in a similar fashion as seen in Figure 4 of Yoo).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ventilation port of Yoon with the filter of Yoo to prevent debris and excessive odors from entering the ventilation port.
Regarding claim 3, Yoon’s modified teachings are described above in claim 2 where the combination of Yoon, Kobos, and Yoo would further disclose that the filter assembly covers an inner face of the ventilation port (Resultant combination for the filter of Yoo to cover [in the broadest reasonable interpretation] an inner face of the ventilation port of 172 of Yoon).
Regarding claim 4, Yoon’s modified teachings are described above in claim 2 where the combination of Yoon, Kobos, and Yoo would further disclose that the filter assembly defines one or more snap fit connectors and the receptacle defines one or more matching voids extending through the receptacle, the voids being arranged in locations corresponding to the snap fit connectors to allow the filter assembly to be secured to the receptacle (Yoon’s latching grooves 68/69 with the mating hooks 84/94 as seen as snap-fit connectors with matching voids [68/69 of Yoon]).
Regarding claim 5, Yoon’s modified teachings are described above in claim 2 where the combination of Yoon, Kobos, and Yoo would further disclose that the filter assembly is of a generally planar shape (Using generally as a term of breadth, the filter of Yoon in Figure 4 is generally a planar shape).
Regarding claim 7, Yoon’s modified teachings are described above in claim 2 where the combination of Yoon, Kobos, and Yoo would further disclose that the frame of the filter assembly is asymmetrical to provide for insertion in a single orientation (Evident of Yoo Figure 4 that the filters are only able to be inserted correctly in a single orientation).
Regarding claim 8, Yoon’s modified teachings are described above in claim 2 where the combination of Yoon, Kobos, and Yoo would further disclose that the ventilation port defines a single through hole molded into the front bulkhead to provide an air channel for passage of air flow through the front bulkhead (Yoon shows a single ventilation port and therefore through hole as 172), wherein the wire mesh of the filter assembly secures the air channel from object entry (Resultant combination for the filter of Yoo to be placed at the ventilation port).
Claim 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0191212 (Yoon) in view of US 6138692 (Kobos) in view of US 9527638 (Yoo) and further in view of US 2019/0128220 (Stimpson hereinafter).
Regarding claim 6, Yoon’s modified teachings are described above in claim 2 but are silent with respect that the frame of the filter assembly is composed of a polymer overmolded around the wire mesh.
However, Stimpson teaches an air filter that discloses overmolding a polymer around the filter material (Figures 7A and 7B with ¶ 34 details that the surrounding polymers of 1104 and 1100 are overmolded onto the filter 1102). The resultant combination would use the teachings of Stimpson and apply it to the frame and wire mesh of Yoo as applied into Yoon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the filter of Yoon/Yoo with the teachings of Stimpson to eliminate the need for additional sealing parts per ¶ 34 of Stimpson.
Regarding claim 18, Yoon teaches a dryer that discloses a front bulkhead defining an inlet portion projecting inward into the interior of a drum of a clothes dryer (Figure 1B, front bulkhead 17a with inlet 172), the inlet portion defining an access opening into the drum and a receptacle having a generally vertical surface (Evident of Figure 1B and the air inlet 172), the generally vertical surface defining a ventilation port through the generally vertical surface (Figure 1B with 172) and the ventilation port being free of mesh (The air inlet 172 will inherently have port for the air to flow and there is no mention or figure of the mesh).
Yoon is silent with respect to an actuator mount located on an outer face of the generally vertical surface and the actuator mount configured to receive a ventilation actuator for controlling airflow through the ventilation port
However, Kobos teaches a ventilation system for a household appliance that similarly prevents odor that discloses an actuator mount located on an outer face of a generally vertical surface (Figures 2 and 5 with actuator 38 and mounting seen in Figure 5) and the actuator mount configured to receive a ventilation actuator for controlling airflow through the ventilation port (Evident from Figure 5 of Kobos). The resultant combination would utilize the ventilation cover (36 of Kobos) with the ventilation port of Yoon such that the port can be set in an open or closed position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ventilation port of Yoon with the ventilation actuator of Kobos to prevent excessive build-up of undesirable atmospheric conditions within the appliance and therefore leading to odors or molding.
Yoon is silent with respect to the receptacle defining one or more matching voids extending through the receptacle; and a filter assembly comprising a wire mesh and a frame around the periphery of the wire mesh, wherein the receptacle is configured to receive the filter assembly such that the filter assembly covers the ventilation port, the filter assembly defining one or more snap fit connectors arranged in locations corresponding to the one or more matching voids to allow the filter assembly to be secured to the receptacle in a single orientation.
However, Yoo teaches a filter assembly for mitigating odor that discloses a filter assembly comprising a wire mesh and a frame formed around the periphery of the wire mesh (Figure 4 with frames of 80 and 90 surrounding the interior porous [mesh] 81/91), wherein the receptacle is configured to receive the filter assembly such that the filter assembly covers the ventilation port (Resultant combination would the ventilation port of Yoon to receiver the filter of Yoo in a similar fashion as seen in Figure 4 of Yoo); the filter assembly defines one or more snap fit connectors and the receptacle defines one or more matching voids extending through the receptacle, the voids being arranged in locations corresponding to the snap fit connectors to allow the filter assembly to be secured to the receptacle (Yoon’s latching grooves 68/69 with the mating hooks 84/94 as seen as snap-fit connectors with matching voids [68/69 of Yoon]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ventilation port of Yoon with the filter of Yoo to prevent debris and excessive odors from entering the ventilation port.
Yoon is silent with respect to a frame composed of a polymer overmolded around the periphery of the wire mesh.
However, Stimpson teaches an air filter that discloses overmolding a polymer around the filter material (Figures 7A and 7B with ¶ 34 details that the surrounding polymers of 1104 and 1100 are overmolded onto the filter 1102). The resultant combination would use the teachings of Stimpson and apply it to the frame and wire mesh of Yoo as applied into Yoon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the filter of Yoon/Yoo with the teachings of Stimpson to eliminate the need for additional sealing parts per ¶ 34 of Stimpson.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0191212 (Yoon) in view of US 6138692 (Kobos) and further in view of US 2018/0292012 (Pawel hereinafter).
Regarding claim 9, Yoon’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the ventilation actuator comprises an actuator bracket configured to attach the ventilation actuator to the actuator mount, the actuator mount defines one or more bosses, and the actuator bracket defines one or more corresponding through holes configured to receive fasteners to secure the actuator bracket to the one or more bosses.
However, Pawel teaches an actuator and mounting system that discloses an actuator which comprises an actuator bracket configured to attach the actuator to the actuator mount (Actuator 48 is similarly mounted in an offset configuration as Yoon/Kobos while Pawel shows the bracket 42 in Figures 2-5 able to be mounted), the actuator mount defines one or more bosses (Bosses 44 in Figure 2 of Pawel), and the actuator bracket defines one or more corresponding through holes configured to receive fasteners to secure the actuator bracket to the one or more bosses (Fasteners 46 in Figures 2-5 of Pawel per ¶ 39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the unspecified mounting system of Yoon/Kobos’ actuator with the specific mounting system of Pawel to allow for easy assembly and replacement with the use of two fasteners.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0191212 (Yoon) in view of US 6138692 (Kobos) and further in view of US 2014/0150279 (Kwon hereinafter).
Regarding claim 12, Yoon’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the ventilation port defines a plurality of through holes molded into the front bulkhead to provide an air channel for passage of air flow through the front bulkhead while securing the air channel from object entry.
However, Kwon teaches a dryer that discloses a ventilation port that defines a plurality of through holes molded into the front bulkhead to provide an air channel for passage of air flow through the front bulkhead while securing the air channel from object entry (Figures 8 and 9 show a ventilation opening of a dryer with a central separating structure to make the ventilation opening into a plurality of ventilation openings). The resultant combination would allow for the ventilation opening of Yoon to be split into a plurality of ventilation openings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ventilation opening of Yoon with the structure of Kwon to ensure that the any excessive liquid is dispersed by the structure of the ventilation opening per Kwon ¶ 113.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0191212 (Yoon) in view of US 6138692 (Kobos) and further in view of US 2009/0229318 (Kim hereinafter).
Regarding claim 13, Yoon’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the ventilation port defines a generally rectangular opening having perpendicular first and second ribs connecting midpoints of opposite sides of the generally rectangular opening, with one or more concentric circular ribs centered at the intersection of the first and second ribs.
However, Kim teaches a filter covering that discloses a framed shape of a generally rectangular opening having perpendicular first and second ribs connecting midpoints of opposite sides of the generally rectangular opening, with one or more concentric circular ribs centered at the intersection of the first and second ribs (Figures 3 and 4a with “t” shaped ribs and a circular rib shown).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ventilation port of Yoon with the structure of Kim to provide a base level of protection from objects while adding structure to the ventilation port.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0191212 (Yoon) in view of US 9527638 (Yoo).
Regarding claim 14, Yoon teaches a dryer that discloses a front bulkhead defining an inlet portion projecting inward into the interior of a drum of a clothes dryer (Figure 1B, front bulkhead 17a with inlet 172), a generally vertical surface defining a ventilation port through the generally vertical surface, the ventilation port being free of mesh (The air inlet 172 will inherently have port for the air to flow and there is no mention or figure of the mesh), and a receptacle of the front bulkhead of the clothes dryer (Bulkhead 17 as seen in Figure 1B).
Yoon is silent with respect to a wire mesh; and a frame formed around the periphery of the wire mesh to support the wire mesh in a planar shape, the frame sized to be receivable only in a single orientation into a receptacle of a front bulkhead of a clothes dryer, the receptacle having an arcuate end edge that follows a curvature of the bulkhead, the frame having a generally rectangular perimeter defined by first and second opposed linear side edges, a linear end edge, and an arcuate end edge opposite the linear end edge, the arcuate end edge having a curvature corresponding to the curvature of the arcuate end edge of the receptacle, such that the filter assembly provides the wire mesh to cover a ventilation port through the receptacle of the front bulkhead.
However, Yoo teaches a filter assembly for mitigating odor that discloses a wire mesh; and a frame formed around the periphery of the wire mesh to support the wire mesh in a planar shape (Figure 4 with frames of 80 and 90 surrounding the interior porous [mesh] 81/91), the frame sized to be receivable only in a single orientation (Evident of Yoo Figure 4 that the filters are only able to be inserted correctly in a single orientation due to the clip at 94) into a receptacle, the receptacle having an arcuate end edge that follows a curvature of the bulkhead (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the flanged portion at the end of the reference line 82), the frame having a generally rectangular perimeter defined by first and second opposed linear side edges (short sides of the filter in Yoon Figure 4), a linear end edge (Lower long edge of Yoon), and an arcuate end edge opposite the linear end edge (Upper edge with the filter), the arcuate end edge having a curvature corresponding to the curvature of the arcuate end edge of the receptacle (The curved of the surface at the reference 82 would match with the line in the dryer of Yoo), such that the filter assembly provides the wire mesh to cover a ventilation port extending through the receptacle of the front bulkhead (Resultant combination would the ventilation port of Yoon to receiver the filter of Yoo in a similar fashion as seen in Figure 4 of Yoo).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ventilation port of Yoon with the filter of Yoo to prevent debris and excessive odors from entering the ventilation port.
Regarding claim 15, Yoon’s modified teachings are described above in claim 14 where the combination of Yoon and Yoo would further disclose that the filter assembly is sized to cover an inner face of the ventilation port (Resultant combination for the filter of Yoo to cover [in the broadest reasonable interpretation] an inner face of the ventilation port of 172 of Yoon).
Regarding claim 16, Yoon’s modified teachings are described above in claim 14 where the combination of Yoon and Yoo would further disclose that the filter assembly defines one or more snap fit connectors and the receptacle defines one or more matching voids extending through the receptacle, the voids being arranged in locations corresponding to the snap fit connectors to allow the filter assembly to be secured to the receptacle (Yoon’s latching grooves 68/69 with the mating hooks 84/94 as seen as snap-fit connectors with matching voids [68/69 of Yoon]).
Regarding claim 17, Yoon’s modified teachings are described above in claim 14 where the combination of Yoon and Yoo would further disclose that the generally rectangular perimeter of the frame includes rounded corners joining the linear side sides and the arcuate end edge (Figure 4 of Yoo appears to short slightly rounded corners).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0191212 (Yoon) in view of US 6138692 (Kobos) in view of US 9527638 (Yoo) in view of US 2019/0128220 (Stimpson) and further in view of US 2014/0150279 (Kwon).
Regarding claim 20, Yoon’s modified teachings are described above in claim 18 but are silent with respect that the ventilation port defines a plurality of through holes molded into the front bulkhead to provide an air channel for passage of air flow through the front bulkhead while securing the air channel from object entry.
However, Kwon teaches a dryer that discloses a ventilation port that defines a plurality of through holes molded into the front bulkhead to provide an air channel for passage of air flow through the front bulkhead while securing the air channel from object entry (Figures 8 and 9 show a ventilation opening of a dryer with a central separating structure to make the ventilation opening into a plurality of ventilation openings). The resultant combination would allow for the ventilation opening of Yoon to be split into a plurality of ventilation openings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ventilation opening of Yoon with the structure of Kwon to ensure that the any excessive liquid is dispersed by the structure of the ventilation opening per Kwon ¶ 113.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 10 states “wherein the actuator mount defines one or more guide pins, the actuator bracket defines one or more guide pin locator openings, and the guide pins and the guide pin locator openings are sized and positioned to locate the ventilation actuator into position for attachment.” This further structure would require at least one if not more references to teach and the potential combination would not be obvious in the Examiner’s point of view. Claim 19 recites similar language and for this reason, dependent claims 10 and 19 are objected to as allowable over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 have been reviewed but are not found to be persuasive. Applicant has restated the Yoon reference ¶ 34 in which Yoon illustrates that the air inlet 172 (ventilation port) is formed in the gasket 17a and in the Figure 1B of Yoon the area in which the air inlet is located is in a generally (emphasis intended) vertical section of the gasket. The Examiner should note for clarity that the inlet has been redefined per the claim amendments and the inlet constitutes the opening towards the drum 18 as seen in Figure 1B and thus would include the gasket 17a. Additionally the term “generally” allows the Examiner leeway when located the ventilation port. Applicant further argues that the Yoon reference fails to teach the negative limitation of “being free of mesh” however Yoon does not mention the use of mesh and therefore the Examiner is taking the stance that there is not mesh present. Finally, Applicant argues that the Kobos reference would require considerable reconstruction to recreate the claimed language as set forth. The Examiner is of the stance that the Kobos reference would be applicable and readily modifiable to the primary reference of Yoon. The internal mechanism of Kobos is sheltered from the internal washing (equivalent to the drying drum of Yoon). The ability to open or close the air inlet 172 would be obvious to ensure that the internal environment of the treatment chamber (drum of Yoon, washing area of Kobos) is maintained at a specific level relating to air temperature or humidity. The covering would also be beneficial to protect the internal area of the air inlet of Yoon when not required to be open. Therefore, for at least this reason, independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-13 are not found to be allowable over the prior art. Please note that the arguments above also apply to independent claim 18 and dependent claims 19-20.
Applicant’s arguments directed towards claim 14 have been reviewed but are not found to be persuasive. Applicant has argued that an arcuate shape is not present however their specification as filed does not shed light on the actual location or any specifics of the arcuate end. The Examiner has attempted to interpret the Applicant’s claims in a broad sense and the Applicant is welcomed to further amend to not only overcome the interpretation of Kobos but to also overcome the 112(a) rejection set forth. For at least this reason, Applicant’s arguments regarding independent claim 14 and dependent claims 15-17 are not found to be persuasive.
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 CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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, MICHAEL HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762