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 on or after May 21, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-14 remain pending in the application. Of these, claim 14 is new. In response to the applicant’s arguments and amendments, a more detailed action and references are provided.
Response to Arguments
The arguments files on May 21, 2026 have been fully considered but are not found to be fully persuasive. Regarding the arguments that:
Applicant’s Amendments overcome the previously set forth 112b rejections: The examiner agrees that the 112b rejections of Claims 1, 11, and 8 are overcome by the applicant’s amendments. However, the rejection of Claim 12 under 112b still stands as this claim remains unamended.
“Willsey does not disclose ant dedicated shelling device housing in a shelling compartment:”: The examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion and further cites to Figure 4 of Willsey which shows a dedicated shelling device with a shelling compartment as annotated.
Willsey does not disclose any transport device “configured to separately transport the egg fluid from said shelling device”: The disagrees with this assertion and refers the transport device cited in the previous office action (((“movable elements” Col 9 Element 40) and “conveyor assembly” Col 9 Line 46 with “two conveyors” Col 11 Line 51) Col 9 Lines 40-45), the movement of which results in the separation of “yolk” and the albumen from the “egg shells” Col 10 Line 30-35). Furthermore, the applicant seems to imply a desired interpretation of only a single shelling device, but the claims as currently written are not limited to this interpretation.
Willsey does not mention the use of UV light for the purposes of disinfection: The examiner submits that this feature is taught by the modifying reference Shur as set forth in the previous office action.
Shur is an inappropriate modifying reference as it pertains to storage and does not mention cracking: The examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion. Shur constitutes analogous art on the basis that it solves the same problem which in this case, is disinfection via UV irradiation. Shur teaches disinfecting with UV light for a variety of food-related purposes.
Willsey teaches away from cleaning during operation: The examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion and submits that cleaning after operation does not teach away from cleaning during operation, especially considering that the operation is cyclical in nature, and that the cleaning operation, even though stated to occur at the end of operation, could still occur at any point during the cyclical operation of the machine.
The use of Shur “indicates that it would be desirable to break stored products:” The examiner respectfully submits that this is not the case. As indicated in the previous office action, Shur teaches “a sanitizing device is adapted to emit ultraviolet radiation (“Ultra violet system for disinfection” Title Figure 9 Element 12A and 12B [0042]) with a “sterilizing operating configuration” [0009] for surfaces which come in contact with food (food “storage area” [0010] Figure 9.)” Shur is not cited by the action to teach cracking (which is drawn to the primary reference) or storage (which is not a feature of Shur cited to in any capacity).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a shelling device…configured to open egg shells” in claim 1further defined by the applicant’s specification and dependent claims as consisting of “one opening member” and “two-conveyors” (Claim 3)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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 12 and 14 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 12 recites the phrase “optionally” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). As a result, the limitations following these phrases cannot further limit the scope of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 recites the phrase “the refrigerant” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “the refrigerant” of Claim 14 will be understood to refer to the “refrigeration device” of Claim 8. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willsey (US 4,321,864) in view of Shur (US Pub No. 2014/0061509 A1):
PNG
media_image1.png
562
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
244
728
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
413
582
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
322
722
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
690
560
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
578
1042
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
612
780
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Willsey teaches an apparatus (“machine” Abstract) for shelling eggs (“egg[s]” Abstract) which includes:
a casing (“supporting frame structure” Figure 1 Element 10 Col 3 Line 53 together with outer casing evident throughout drawings, see Figs 1, 4-5, 10, 18, 20, including cabinet 184) defining a shelling compartment (shown in Figure 1 adj element 143) and an unloading compartment (Shown in figure 1 adjacent element 168 also shown in Figure 4 as annotated);
-a shelling device (“cracking or breaking mechanism” Col 4 Line 29 Figure 7 Element 32) housed in said shelling compartment (A) and configured to open egg shells;
an unloading device (“contents separating mechanism” Col 4 Line 32 Figure 7 Element 34) housed in said unloading compartment (B) and comprising at least one hopper member (“receptacle…in the form of a tray…where the yolk and albumen are discharged into separate vessels in the form of vertically spaced top and bottom trays 168 and 170,” Col 10 Line See Fis 3 and 19) -suitable for receiving and unloading a shelling product consisting of albumen, yolk or a mixture of albumen and yolk (the yolk and albumen are separated and received by the respective members Col 6);
a transport device (“movable elements” Col 9 Element 40) comprising conveyors (“conveyor assembly” Col 9 Line 46 with “two conveyors” Col 11 Line 51 (Col 9 Lines 40-45) configured to separately transport albumen and yolk from said shelling device to said unloading device the movement of which results in the separation of “yolk” and the albumen from the “egg shells” Col 10 Line 30-35))
sanitizing devices (“washing area” Figure 1 Element 184 with a “plurality of water jets Figure 1 Element 185) housed in said casing …
Willsey doesn’t not teach that the sanitizing device is adapted to emit ultraviolet radiation and which comprise a first sanitizing device positioned to irradiate operating surfaces of said at least one hopper member, to reduce a bacterial load on said operating surfaces, wherein said operating surfaces are surfaces that come into contact with yolk and/or albumen during the operation of said apparatus.
It should be noted that Willsey does teach that the sanitizing device will clean the operating surfaces (“washing jets…strike the cups 80 and pans 82” Col 11 Lines 65-67 as well as “the breaking and separating mechanism and all associated parts” Col 11 Lines 61-62. Therefore, it would be reasonable to clean 168 and 170 as all elements are in contact with raw egg during operation)
However, Shur does teach a sanitizing device is adapted to emit ultraviolet radiation (“Ultra violet system for disinfection” Title Figure 9 Element 12A and 12B [0042]) with a “sterilizing operating configuration” [0009] for surfaces which come in contact with food (food “storage area” [0010] Figure 9)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Willsey to add UV sanitation devices as taught by Shur in addition to the existing sanitization device to irradiate the parts hit by the sprayers, the hoppers (elements 168 and 170) and all elements that come in contact with raw egg in order to provide “reliable, hygienic storage [or containment] of sanitary and biological items, such as food [for]… manufacturers [during item processing]” [0003] and keep the food processing surfaces clean throughout operation and provide continuous disinfection.
Regarding Claim 2: Willsey as modified by Shur further teaches that the sanitizing devices (Willsey “washing jets…strike the cups 80 and pans 82” Col 11 Lines 65-67 and Shur “Ultra violet system for disinfection” Title) comprise a third sanitizing device (Shur Figure 9 Element 12A) positioned to irradiate working parts of said shelling device wherein said working parts comprise parts able to come into contact with an egg during the operation of said apparatus (See section Regarding Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 3: Willsey as modified by Shur further teaches a shelling device (Willsey “cracking or breaking mechanism” Col 4 Line 29 Figure 7 Element 32) comprises at least one opening member (Willsey “breaking and separating heads” Col 8 Line 50 Figure 4 Element 12) configured to open an egg shell and cause the yolk and albumen to fall;
said conveyors (Willsey “conveyor assembly” Col 9 Line 46 with “two conveyors” Col 11 Line 51) comprise: - at least a first conveyor (Willsey See Figure 19 as annotated “First Conveyor”) having a plurality of seats each adapted to house a yolk (Figure 19 Element 80) at least a second conveyor (Willsey See Figure 19 as annotated “Second Conveyor”) having a plurality of seats each suitable for housing albumen (Willsey Figure 19 Element 82);
wherein each of said opening member (Willsey “breaking and separating heads” Figure 19 Element 12) is arranged above one of said at least one first conveyor to unload a yolk for each seat of said first conveyor (Willsey Shown in Figure 19) ; wherein each of said at least one first conveyor is arranged on top of one of said at least one second conveyor (See Figure 19) to unload albumen into the seats of said second conveyor; the operating surfaces of said conveyors comprise said seats (Willsey Figure 19 Elements 80 and 82) ; said first sanitizing device (Shur “Ultra violet system for disinfection” Title Figure 9 Element 12A and 12B [0042]) being positioned in such a way as to irradiate said seats before they are engaged respectively by a yolk and an albumen, during the operation of said apparatus (it would be reasonable to use the cleaning apparatus of Willsey as modified by Shur to irradiate the seats by UV radiation in order to disinfect the seats prior to receiving the raw egg and maintain cleanliness of the operation, especially noting that the egg yolk would block UV from reaching the surfaces).
Regarding Claim 4: Willsey as modified by Shur further teaches that said first sanitizing device (Willsey “washing area” Figure 1 Element 184 with a “plurality of water jets Figure 1) is arranged side by side to said shelling device (Willsey “cracking or breaking mechanism” Col 4 Line 29 represented by Element 12 (the opening member) in Figure 1)
Willsey as modified by Shur does not teach that the former is arranged upstream of the latter with respect to a direction of advancement of said seats to sanitize the latter just before being filled.
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the arrangement such that the sanitizing device is upstream of the shelling device in order to disinfect the operating surface immediately prior to use and as it has been held that rearrangement of parts requires only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.VI n re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In this case, one would be motivated to move the sanitizing device upstream of the shelling device because if UV sanitizing was attempted after the shelling device deposits raw egg in the seats, at least the egg yolk would block the UV light from reaching the surfaces of the seats.
Regarding Claim 5: Willsey as modified by Shur further teaches that said unloading device (“contents separating mechanism” Col 4 Line 32 Figure 7 Element 34) comprises an emptying member (Figure 7 Element 95) operable to interfere with said second conveyor (See Figure 19 “Second Conveyor”) in a first unloading position of said unloading compartment (where the egg is introduced) ; said emptying member being configured to cause, following its actuation, a fall of the contents (Illustrated by the movement of Element 80 in Figure 7 where the solid lines show a first position and the dotted lines show a second) of the seats of said first conveyor (See Figure 19 “First Conveyor”) when they pass through said first unloading position during the operation of said apparatus
a first hopper member (“receptacle” Col 10 Line 57 Figure 3 Element 167) of said at least one hopper member (Figure 3 Element 167, 168, and 170) which is positioned so that, in use, it is under said second conveyor (See Figure 19 “Second Conveyor”) in said first unloading position to receive the contents of the seats of said second conveyor (the first hopper member is positioned “beneath the conveyor path” Col 10 line 57-58).
Regarding Claim 12: Willsey as modified by Shur further teaches that the apparatus comprises ventilation means (Willsey “air jet” Col 11 Line 40 Figure 1 Element 176 is adjacent 177) which are in aeraulic communication (one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the use of an air jet as producing pressurized air such that aeraulic communication is achieved) with the interior of said casing (Willsey “supporting frame structure” Figure 1 Element 10 Col 3 Line 53) to force a gas to flow into the latter
Claims 6-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willsey 1982 (US 4,321,864) and Shur (US Pub No. 2014/0061509 A1) in further view of Stefanakis (US 4,930,409):
PNG
media_image8.png
302
586
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6: Willsey as modified by Shur does not teach that the invention comprises a first filtering device positioned so that, in use, it is above said first hopper member to filter and retain eggshell fragments and allow the passage of said shelling product.
However, Stefanakis does teach an apparatus for an “egg storing and processing” (Abstract) comprising a filter (“Sieve” Col 4 Line 35 Figure 2 Element 36 Col 1 Line 54)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Willsey as modified by Shur by adding the filter at the entrance to elements 168 and 170 of Willsey as taught by Stefanakis in order to provide an additional means to retain “egg shell fragments” and improve the efficiency of the invention (Col 1 Lines 53-55).
Regarding Claim 7: Willsey as modified by Shur and Stefanakis further teaches that a second sanitizing device (Shur “Ultra violet system for disinfection” Title Figure 9 Element 12A and 12B [0042]) of said sanitizing devices faces said first filtering device (Willsey 1988 “Filter” Col 4 line 35) and said first hopper member (Willsey “receptacle” Col 10 Line 57 Figure 3 Element 167) to reduce any bacterial load present on them by irradiating, via UV, all items that contact raw egg (see combination statement for claim 1).
Regarding Claim 8: Willsey as modified by Shur further teaches that the unloading device (Willsey “contents separating mechanism” Col 4 Line 32 Figure 7 Element 34) -comprises: - a tank (Willsey “receptacle” Figure 3 Element 167 Col 10 Line 57) arranged in said unloading compartment in such a way that in use it is under said first conveyor to receive said shelling product from the latter (Willsey the receptable received the “egg” product Col 10 Line 59 product)
Willsey as modified by Shur does not teach a refrigeration device thermally connected to said tank to cool it to a temperature not higher than 15 C
However, Stefanakis does teach an “egg storing and processing machine” with a refrigeration device (“Refrigeration system” Col 2 Line 63)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Willsey as modified by Shur with the refrigeration system as taught by Stefanakis in order to “allow [processed] eggs to be stored in a manner consistent with the food preservation standards” Col 2 Lines 19-23.
Although the art of Stefanakis does not explicitly teach that the refrigeration system cools to a temperature not higher than 15 C, this is the case as evidenced by Feeding America: Safe Handling Guidelines for Shell Eggs which teaches the standard that eggs in storage or transportation should be kept at “refrigerated temperature of 45 degrees Fahrenheit or lower” Pg. 1 which is approximately 7 degrees Celsius (less than 15) which reads on the limitation of the claim.
Regarding Claim 14: Willsey as modified by Shur and Stefanakis further teaches that the refrigeration device comprises a cooling jacket (“casing” Col 2 Line 16) providing recirculation of refrigerant (cold air provided by the “compressor [and] refrigeration coils” Col 3 Lines 63-68) associated with the tank.
Regarding Claim 9: Willsey as modified by Shur and Stefanakis further teaches that the apparatus is configured for unloading said shelling product from said first conveyor (Willsey 1982 See Figure 19 “First Conveyor”) into a second unloading position of said unloading compartment (wherein eggs are unloaded into the hopper elements of Willsey 168 and 170); said apparatus comprising a second filtering device (See section regarding Claim 6 which outlines a second filter over 170) arranged in such a way as to receive shelling product from said first conveyor (See Figure 19 “Second Conveyor”) unloaded into said second unloading position, to filter and retain eggshell fragments and allowing the passage of said shelling product (col 10 lines 60-65: “The assemblies 12 with properly separated albumen and yolk are allowed to advance to a discharge position where the yolk and the albumen are discharged into separate vessels in the form of vertically spaced top and bottom trays 168 and 170 at the discharge station or area.”).
Regarding Claim 10: Willsey as modified by Shur and Stefanakis does not teach that the invention comprises a fourth sanitizing device -of said sanitizing devices which faces said second filtering device to reduce any bacterial load present on it.
The invention of Willsey as modified by Shur and Stefanakis teaches the limitations of claim 10 except that the sanitation system comprises a fourth sanitation device. However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of invention such that the sanitation system comprises a fourth sanitation device as it has been held that the duplication of parts requires only routine skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04 VI) In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955)
Regarding Claim 11: Willsey as modified by Shur and Stefanakis further teaches that said first filtering device and/or said second filtering device (Stefanakis “Sieve” Col 4 Line 35 Figure 2 Element 36 Col 1 Line 54), respectively, comprises a mesh (Stefanakis “sieve provided with a plurality of holes of a mash size” Col 11 Lines 53-55)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willsey 1982 (US 4,321,864) and Shur (US Pub No. 2014/0061509 A1) in further view of Rasmussen (US 4,919,042):
PNG
media_image9.png
354
606
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13: Willsey as modified by Shur does not teach that the apparatus comprises a suction unit -which is in aeraulic connection with the interior of said casing and is configured to suck a gas contained in the latter.
However, Rasmussen does teach an apparatus for the breaking of eggs and their separation into yolk and albumen (Title) which further comprises a suction unit (“suction (24) in the scavenging duct (22) Figure 2) in aeraulic (“sub-pressure” communication Abstract) with the invention
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Willsey as modified by Shur with the suction unit of Rasmussen in order to provide means for “secure removal of residual albumen” (Abstract) and avoid the “risk of contamination to the ambient air” Col 2 Lines 7-11
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 SOLAN OLIVA whose telephone number is (571-)272-2518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-3:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-8241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-5569.
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.
/SOLAN OLIVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights