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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in EP on 12/24/2020.
Drawings
Figures 1,2, 7, 8 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 delivery system in claim 1, interpreted as nozzle as described in page 9 of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof
a heating arrangement in claim 1, interpreted as heaters as described in page 6 of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof
air circulation arrangement in claim 1, interpreted as vent as described in page 3 of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof
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(b)
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.
Claim15 is 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 15 depends on claim 1. Claim 15 recites “a bottom surface which comprises a channel arrangement”. It is not clear if claim 15 is referring to the same bottom surface with channel arrangement as in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 11-12, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang, CN 209899171 (hereafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 1,
A steam cooking apparatus, comprising: (Title)
a cooking chamber; (Fig. 7)
PNG
media_image1.png
654
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7 in Zhang
a steam heater at a bottom surface of the cooking chamber for generating steam; (5)
a water reservoir; (tank 40)
a delivery system for delivering water from the water reservoir to the steam heater; (nozzle 9)
a heating chamber adjacent the cooking chamber; (Fig. 7)
a heating arrangement (heating pipe 16) located within the heating chamber for heating air laden with the steam;
an air circulation arrangement (vents in Fig. 7) between the cooking chamber and the heating chamber to allow a circulatory flow of the steam laden air between the heating chamber and the cooking chamber; (vents in Fig. 7)
and a food support for mounting in the cooking chamber, (12)
wherein the food support has a bottom surface which comprises a channel arrangement, (Fig. 10)
PNG
media_image2.png
523
625
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 10 in Zhang
wherein when the food support is mounted in the cooking chamber, the channel arrangement is positioned over the steam heater, (Fig. 7)
wherein the channel arrangement provides a flow path for transporting the steam generated by the steam heater towards the heating arrangement, (Fig. 7 implies that steam generated in steam heater moves upwards towards food support 12, hence towards heater 16.)
and wherein the bottom surface forms the channel arrangement by raised portions of the bottom surface. (Fig. 10)
Regarding claim 9,
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the channel arrangement comprises first and second orthogonal channels which cross. (Fig. 10 in Zhang.)
Regarding claim 11,
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the food support comprises: a base which functions as a capture tray and which forms the bottom surface; (18 in Zhang) and a support tray mounted over the base for supporting food items to be cooked. (12 in Zhang.)
Regarding claim 12,
The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the base comprises a well beneath the support tray. (Fig. 7 in Zhang)
PNG
media_image3.png
654
648
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7 in Zhang
Regarding claim 14,
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the cooking chamber comprises a base, a rear wall area and a front wall area, (Fig. 7)
PNG
media_image4.png
654
746
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7 in Zhang
wherein the air circulation arrangement comprises an extraction vent in the rear wall area through which the air is drawn from inside the cooking chamber, and a delivery vent in the rear wall area for delivering the air to the cooking chamber. (Fig. 7 teaches vents in the rear wall for circulating hot air and steam inside the chamber and rear wall. It is implied the vents are extraction and delivery vents for circulation.)
Regarding claim 15,
A food support (12 in Zhang) for use as the food support of the steam cooking apparatus of claim 1, for mounting in the cooking chamber of the steam cooking apparatus, (Fig. 7) wherein the food support has a bottom surface which comprises a channel arrangement (Fig. 10) for positioning over the steam heater. (Fig. 7)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zwanenburg et al., US 20160120363 (hereafter Zwanenburg).
Regarding claim 2,
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the circulatory flow has a flow rate in a range 2 liters/second to 30 liters/second between the cooking chamber and the heating chamber. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Zwanenburg teaches in paragraph [32] “In an example, the air movement device is configured to provide an air flow rate of approximately 20 l/sec or more in the food preparation chamber.” Here the claimed range of 2 to 30 liters/second overlaps the range 20 liter/sec in Zwanenburg, and hence obvious. MPEP 2144.05-I sets forth that “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide
concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the circulatory flow in a range of 2 to 30 liters/sec as taught in Zwanenburg to the apparatus in Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The hot air is thus penetrating food, where the food has such structures, like in a pile, and the hot air is thus not only moved around outer boundary of the food with lower speed, but directly heats up the food, i.e. the hot air transmits the heat directly to places of the food” as taught in paragraph [34] in Zwanenburg.
Regarding claim 5,
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein a flow over the steam heater has a flow rate in a range 1 liter/second to 30 liters/second. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Zwanenburg teaches in paragraph [32] “In an example, the air movement device is configured to provide an air flow rate of approximately 20 l/sec or more in the food preparation chamber.” Here the claimed range of 1 to 30 liters/second overlaps the range 20 liter/sec in Zwanenburg, and hence obvious. MPEP 2144.05-I sets forth that “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide
concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the flow rate over steam heater in a range of 1 to 30 liters/sec as taught in Zwanenburg to the apparatus in Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The hot air is thus penetrating food, where the food has such structures, like in a pile, and the hot air is thus not only moved around outer boundary of the food with lower speed, but directly heats up the food, i.e. the hot air transmits the heat directly to places of the food” as taught in paragraph [34] in Zwanenburg.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hayakawa et al., US 20050006382 (hereafter Hayakawa).
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the steam heater has an evaporation rate in a range 5g/min to 10g/min. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Hayakawa teaches a dish heater with an amount of generated heat of about 10 g/min in paragraph [157]. Here the claimed range of 5 to 10 g/min overlaps the range about 10g/min in Hayakawa, and hence obvious. MPEP 2144.05-I sets forth that “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide
concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the heater with an evaporation rate of 5g/min to 10g/min as taught in Hayakawa to the apparatus in Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the system comes to be able to generate steam in about 40 seconds” as taught in paragraph [157] in Hayakawa.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hackelsberger, US 4640186 (hereafter Hackelsberger).
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein a flow over the steam heater has a speed in a range 0.1 m/s to 5 m/s. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Hackelsberger teaches a speed of water steam of 2-20 m/sec in column 6, lines 8-12. Here the claimed range of 0.1 to 5 m/s overlaps the range 2-10 m/s in Hackelsberger, and hence obvious. MPEP 2144.05-I sets forth that “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the steam heater to have a flow of 0.1 to 5 m/s as taught in Hackelsberger to the apparatus in Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the funnel at its outlet 26 has a diameter of for example 35-10 mm, or a cross-sectional area of for example 962-78 mm.sup.2, to obtain the speed of the water steam of for example 2-20 m/sec” as taught in column 6, lines 8-12 in Hackelsberger.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shibuya et al., US 20170347408 (hereafter Shibuya).
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the channel arrangement defines a channel height in a range 5mm to 30mm. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Shibuya teaches a food support table with height of about 40 mm in paragraph [65]. The range of about 40mm is close to the claimed range of 5 to 30mm, hence obvious. MPEP 2144.05-I sets forth “A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
(Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%).”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the height of channel in a range of 5 to 30mm as taught in Shibuya to the apparatus in Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “Loading table 50 is disposed at a height of approximately 40 mm, for example, from bottom face 2d of heating chamber 2 to have a space, and lies in approximately parallel (including parallel) to bottom face 2d of heating chamber 2” as taught in paragraph [65] in Shibuya.
Claim(s) 7, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang.
Regarding claim 7,
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein a width of a space around a periphery of the food support to an internal surface of the cooking chamber, in a horizontal plane, is in a range 5mm to 30mm. (Fig. 7 in Zhang teaches a space around the periphery of the food support 12 to internal surface of chamber.)
PNG
media_image5.png
654
648
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7 in Zhang
Even though Zhang is silent about the space having a width of 5 to 30mm, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the width of the space in Zhang for improved circulation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it is routine optimization to find the optimum width of the space to improve air circulation inside the chamber. MPEP 2144.05-II sets forth that ““[W]here 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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)”.
Regarding claim 13,
The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the well has a volume, beneath the support tray, in a range 350ml to 700ml. (18 in Zhang.)
Even though Zhang is silent about the well having a volume of 350 to 700ml, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the volume of the well in Zhang for improved circulation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it is routine optimization to find the optimum volume of the well to collect dropped food, juice, and steam as taught in paragraph 3, page 5 of Zhang. MPEP 2144.05-II sets forth that ““[W]here 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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)”.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahashi, JP 2007003121 (hereafter Takahashi).
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the food support comprises a feet for standing on a bottom of the cooking chamber for positioning the bottom surface of the food support above the bottom of the cooking chamber. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Takahashi teaches food support 35 with feet 35c and 35b for placing it on the bottom surface of the cooking chamber.)
PNG
media_image6.png
385
613
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 in Takahashi
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the feet at the bottom of food tray as taught in Takahashi to the apparatus in Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the steam generated at the time of steam cooking reaches the upper part of the grill 35 as it is, and the steam reaches the lower part of the grill 35 through an upper surface part 35a of the grill 35 and the pan 34 (a space made by the legs 35b and 35c of the grill 35) while the steam is prevented from being obstructed by a peripheral wall 34a of the pan 34, and therefore, the steam sufficiently reaches the upper and lower both surfaces of the cooked material A, and cooking can be satisfactorily finished” as taught in abstract of Takahashi.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Swayne et al., US 20170343221 (hereafter Swayne), Fig. 2
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights