0DETAILED 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 10 September 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-17 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to Claims 2, 6, 8, 10 and 12-17 have overcome each and every claim objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 11 June 2025. However, Applicant’s amendments to Claims 2, 6, 8, 10 and 12-17 and to the Drawings do not overcome the objections to the drawings, the U.S.C. 112 rejections, the U.S.C. 102 rejections, nor the U.S.C. 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 10 September 2025, with respect to the U.S.C. 102 and U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-17, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant Remarks
Regarding the U.S.C. 102 rejections, Applicant remarks that Riemenschneider does not teach the steps of “measuring impurities in the stretch film” and “correlating the measured impurities to the predetermined result”. In the present application Specification para. [0007], [0014], [0015] and [0069], “impurities” refer to discrete, localized physical imperfections within the film, such as those arising from recycled plastic content. Riemenschneider teaches measuring “stiffness”, “strength” and “tension”, which the Applicant remarks are not impurities. Further, Applicant remarks that Riemenschneider does not teach “correlating the measured impurities to the predetermined result”. Instead, Riemenschneider teaches correlating the measured “stiffness” to a “wrapping pattern”.
Regarding the U.S.C. 103 rejections, Applicant remarks that McCarty and Xue also do not teach the steps of “measuring impurities in the stretch film” and “correlating the measured impurities to the predetermined result”.
Examiner Responses
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Also, Examiner respectfully points out that the Specification of the current application is references with page numbers and line numbers, not paragraph numbers. Examiner cannot determine where “impurities” is defined by the Applicant as “discrete, localized physical imperfections within the film”. The current application’s Specification (page 1 line 26 -page 2 line 35) discusses one application of manufacturing a plastic film through recycling, going on to say “the measured impurities can here be correlated to the moment of fracture in order to relate fracture properties of the film to the impurities” (page 2 lines 29-31). However, the Applicant does not redefine the term “impurity”. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, an impurity is any inconsistency from the film material’s current state. Examiner respectfully suggests adding to the claim limitation to further define the impurity.
From Riemenschneider [0033], “Film stiffness is the amount of force required to make a positive dimensional change in the film, typically stretching the film further than its current state in the machine direction of the film”. Thus, there is an inconsistency from the film material’s current state, i.e. there is an impurity. Further, Riemenschneider [0033] teaches the production impurities as the minimized load failure, load damage, and film failure.
Examiner agrees that Xue does not teach the steps of “measuring impurities in the stretch film” and “correlating the measured impurities to the predetermined result”. However, Examiner respectfully points out that McCarty col. 6 lines 14-15 teaches measurement and analysis of “the physical characteristics include elasticity and strength of the film sample”. Changes in elasticity and strength could be considered impurities. Therefore, McCarty is capable of teaching the steps of “measuring impurities in the stretch film” and “correlating the measured impurities to the predetermined result”.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “27”.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the stretch film (missing label) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The drawings are objected to because Applicant remarks that the “stretch film” is labeled in updated figure 1, however the only additional label besides “27” added is “28”, which is the processor 28 (see Specification page 13 lines 15-19).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
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 16-17 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.
In claim 16, the limitation “the relevant stretching station” lacks antecedent basis. The term “the relevant stretching station” could refer to the first stretching station, the second stretching station, or another stretching station. Accordingly, “the relevant stretching station” lacks antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the claim limitation is understood to mean a force on the stretch film in the first stretching station or the second stretching station.
Claim 17 is rejected due to their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8-10 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Riemenschneider et al. (US 20170088301 A1), hereinafter Riemenschneider.
As to claims 1 and 9, Riemenschneider teaches a method and an apparatus for testing a stretch film (abstract; the method of wrapping a load with a stretch wrapping system utilizes a system for monitoring film properties and a module for analyzing the data or film properties), comprising:
- unwinding a roll of stretch film in an unwinding station ([0039]; fig. 8; the film 30 moves from the spindle 112 into the pre-stretch section 114, thus being unwound);
- successive throughfeeding through a first stretching station and a second stretching station for controlling respectively a first stretch and a second stretch ([0039]; fig. 8; the film 30 passes through a first prestretch roller 150 and a second prestretch roller 152, where the film can be stretched at different rates, i.e. a first stretch and a second stretch) according to a predetermined first and second stretch pattern ([0067]; The stretch patterns are described by Riemenschneider as the rates at which the stretch film is paid out from the rollers is in accordance with the tension amounts. There are implicitly a first and a second stretch pattern (tension amounts) because there are a first stretch and a second stretch (rates of stretching)) until a predetermined result is achieved ([0026]; The predetermined result is described by Riemenschneider as content of the result 104 specifically regarding potential qualities. The content of the result 104 may be reference data, scores, written descriptions, or any other information to describe the properties of the wrapping pattern's current, past, or potential qualities. [0034]; The controller 50 determines the film characteristics, such as film stiffness, and then assigns the settings for a particular wrap pattern based on the film characteristics. The sensors 60, 62 (equivalent to sensors 140, 142, 170 in fig. 8) monitor the wrapping to ensure that the determined wrapping pattern is accurately executed, and that the film properties are as expected at the current moment and over time. Thus, the predetermined result is described by Riemenschneider as the particular wrap pattern/ determined wrapping pattern);
- measuring impurities in the stretch film (claims 1-2; The method of applying a stretch film wrap to a load comprising receiving data about the stiffness of the film, which includes information about a dimensional change and a force. The impurities are taught by Riemenschneider as the data showing dimensional changes to the film, i.e. changes from its pure state prior to stretch);
and - correlating the measured impurities to the predetermined result ([0034]; The controller 50 determines the film characteristics, such as film stiffness, and then assigns the settings for a particular wrap pattern based on the film characteristics. The sensors 60, 62 (equivalent to sensors 140, 142, 170 in fig. 8) monitor the wrapping to ensure that the determined wrapping pattern is accurately executed, and that the film properties are as expected at the current moment and over time. Thus, the measured impurities, i.e. the stiffness of the film including a dimensional change and a force, are correlated to the predetermined result, i.e. the result 104 specifically regarding potential qualities, which comprises the wrap pattern).
PNG
media_image1.png
1449
1003
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Riemenschneider Fig. 8
As to claim 2, Riemenschneider teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined first and second stretch patterns ([0067]; The stretch patterns are described by Riemenschneider as the rates at which the stretch film is paid out from the rollers is in accordance with the tension amounts) are related to one of a tensile test ([0050]; The data signals can be sent to the controller 50 to determine a current tension of the stretch film 30. With this information, the actuator 160 can be operated to increase or decrease the film payout speed, i.e. the predetermined first and second stretch patterns) and a consistency test (fig. 8; [0005]-[0006]; [0049]; The force to the film between the prestretch rollers 150, 152 can be measured. [0019]; Measurements of the determined force can be utilized to determine the stiffness, relative stiffness, strength, or relative strength of the film being applied to the load. Thus, a consistency is tested. As known in the art, the force applied is related to the film payout speed, i.e. the first and second stretch patterns)
and the predetermined result relates to a force in the stretch film under a predetermined stretch or fracture (claims 1-2; The method of applying a stretch film wrap to a load comprising receiving data about the stiffness of the film, which includes information about a dimensional change and a force. [0005]-[0006]; fig. 4; Determining a wrapping pattern for the load is based at least in part on the stiffness of the film. The controller is configured to receive data about stiffness of the film and to determine a wrap pattern for the load based at least in part on the stiffness data. Thus, the result 104 specifically regarding potential qualities (i.e. the predetermined result) relates to the force in the film under the wrap pattern),
and wherein the method further comprises measuring the force in the stretch film under at least one of the first stretch and the second stretch ([0049]; fig. 8; The force of film passing over any roller can be measured. Thus, the force in the film under at least one of the first stretch and the second stretch is measured; i.e. at prestretch roller 150, 152).
PNG
media_image2.png
773
592
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Riemenschneider Fig. 4
As to claim 8, Riemenschneider teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising producing the stretch film and winding up the stretch film onto a spool ([0035]; [0040]; fig. 8; The stretch film 30 is produced in the system from the spindle 112 and film platform 28 (right hand side of fig. 8), then winded up onto the load 32 on the turntable 12 (left hand side of fig. 8, not pictured) following the non-powered roller 136),
wherein production impurities in the produced stretch film are measured before the winding up ([0040]; The first sensor 140 can take measurements of the film 30 passing over the first non-powered roller 120. The second sensor 142, can take measurement of the film 30 passing through the second non-powered roller 136. [0033]; The production impurities are described by Riemenschneider as the minimized load failure, load damage, and film failure. [0023]; The system collects this data and stores it in memory 54)
and wherein a quality label is assigned to the spool based on the correlation of the measuring impurities and the production impurities ([0026]; fig. 4; The result 104 is representative of a determination or calculation made by the program. The content of the result 104 may be reference data, scores, written descriptions, or any other information to describe the properties of the wrapping pattern's current, past, or potential qualities. Therefore, the quality label is described by Riemenschneider as the result 104 specifically regarding current qualities. [0034]; The correlation is described by Riemenschneider to be wherein the measured impurities, i.e. the stiffness of the film including a dimensional change and a force, are correlated to the predetermined result, i.e. the result 104 regarding potential qualities, which comprises the wrap pattern. [0033]; The production impurities are described by Riemenschneider as the minimized load failure, load damage, and film failure. Thus, the result 104 assigned to the load 32 is based on the content of the result 104 specifically regarding current qualities: the correlation and the production impurities).
As to claim 10, Riemenschneider teaches the apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the second stretching station comprises a winding mechanism for winding up the stretch film which was fed through the apparatus ([0039]; fig. 8; the second prestretch roller 152 comprises a winding mechanism depicted in fig. 8 as the circular shape which rotates, i.e. winds, the film 30 being fed through the system).
As to claim 15, Riemenschneider teaches the apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the measuring device in the first stretching station is placed close to a first zone where the stretch film enters the first stretching station or close to a second zone where the stretch film exits the first stretching station ([0025]; [0056]; fig. 8; The sensors 140, 142, 170 can be configured to measure dimensional changes in the film 30. The sensors 140, 142, 170 are placed closer to the second zone, i.e. where the film 30 exits the prestretch roller 150, in comparison to the first zone, i.e. where the film 30 enters the prestretch roller 150).
As to claim 16, Riemenschneider teaches the apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the first stretching station and the second stretching station are provided with respectively a first force measuring device and a second force measuring device for measuring the force on the film in the relevant stretching station ([0034]; The controller 50 determines the film characteristics, such as film stiffness, including a dimensional change and a force, and then assigns the settings for a particular wrap pattern based on the film characteristics. The sensors 60, 62 (equivalent to sensors 140, 142, 170 in fig. 8) monitor the wrapping to ensure that the determined wrapping pattern is accurately executed, and that the film properties are as expected at the current moment and over time. [0039]; fig. 8; Thus, the sensors 60, 62 (equivalent to sensors 140, 142, 170 in fig. 8) measure the force on the film 30 in the stretching stations, including where the film 30 passes through a first prestretch roller 150 and a second prestretch roller 152).
As to claim 17, Riemenschneider teaches the apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the predetermined result is based on the force measured in the film (claims 1-2; The method of applying a stretch film wrap to a load comprising receiving data about the stiffness of the film, which includes information about a dimensional change and a force. [0005]-[0006]; fig. 4; Determining a wrapping pattern for the load is based at least in part on the stiffness of the film. The controller is configured to receive data about stiffness of the film and to determine a wrap pattern for the load based at least in part on the stiffness data. Thus, the result 104 specifically regarding potential qualities (i.e. the predetermined result) relates to the force in the film under the wrap pattern).
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 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.
PNG
media_image3.png
2082
1617
media_image3.png
Greyscale
McCarty Fig. 1
PNG
media_image4.png
2841
1687
media_image4.png
Greyscale
McCarty Fig. 5
PNG
media_image5.png
1257
602
media_image5.png
Greyscale
McCarty Fig. 7A-7B
Claims 3-5, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riemenschneider in view of McCarty et al. (US11313879B2), hereinafter McCarty.
As to claims 3 and 11, Riemenschneider does not explicitly disclose wherein the measuring of impurities is performed by a line camera which is placed in one of the unwinding station, first stretching station and second stretching station.
McCarty, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the measuring of impurities is performed by a line camera which is placed in one of the unwinding station, first stretching station and second stretching station (McCarty col. 5 lines 45-55; fig. 1; fig. 5; After the light 18A passes through the film sample, it is captured by a camera 18B fitted with a polarizing filter. Any imperfections/defects in the film scatters light that are detected by the camera. A machine vision algorithm then identifies and tags film samples with significant defects. Therefore, the material image analyzer system 18 is based on detecting defects caused when polarized light passing through the film sample is affected by certain physical defects present in a sample. The film sample is substantially flat, i.e. unwound).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Riemenschneider to incorporate the teachings of McCarty to include wherein the measuring of impurities is performed by a line camera which is placed in one of the unwinding station, first stretching station and second stretching station, for the advantage of increasing data gathering speed and efficiency (McCarty col. 6 line 66- col. 7 line 6).
As to claim 4, Riemenschneider teaches the method according to claim 3.
However, Riemenschneider does not explicitly disclose wherein an image recording frequency of the line camera is operatively coupled to one of the unwinding station, first stretching station and second stretching station, such that the image recording frequency is substantially directly proportional to a throughfeed speed of the stretch film in the relevant station.
McCarty, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein an image recording frequency of the line camera is operatively coupled to one of the unwinding station, first stretching station and second stretching station (McCarty fig. 7A-7B; high-speed video can be captured from above the clamp system 60, i.e. the stretching station, as it closes on the film sample, wherein the stretch is shown in the initial and final frames of the video in fig. 7A-7B), such that the image recording frequency is substantially directly proportional to a throughfeed speed of the stretch film in the relevant station (McCarty col. 7 lines 1-14; fig. 7A-7B; The video is captured starting before the clamp system 60 closes the film sample, and ending after the clamp system 60 closes the film sample. Thus, the image recording frequency is substantially directly proportional to the throughfeed speed of the stretch film. Specifically, the frequency of the video recording increases as the throughfeed speed of the stretching increases).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Riemenschneider to incorporate the teachings of McCarty to include wherein an image recording frequency of the line camera is operatively coupled to one of the unwinding station, first stretching station and second stretching station, such that the image recording frequency is substantially directly proportional to a throughfeed speed of the stretch film in the relevant station; for the advantage of testing efficacy of the stretching system (McCarty col. 7 lines 1-5).
As to claims 5 and 12, Riemenschneider does not explicitly disclose wherein a line light is placed opposite the line camera, such that the stretch film is feedable between the line light and the line camera.
McCarty, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein a line light is placed opposite the line camera, such that the stretch film is feedable between the line light and the line camera (McCarty col. 5 lines 45-55; fig. 1; fig. 5; After the light 18A passes through the film sample, it is captured by a camera 18B. Thus, the light 18A is placed opposite the line camera, such that the film sample is feedable in the space between the line light and the line camera).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Riemenschneider to incorporate the teachings of McCarty to include wherein a line light is placed opposite the line camera, such that the stretch film is feedable between the line light and the line camera; for the advantage of increasing data gathering speed and efficiency (McCarty col. 6 line 66- col. 7 line 6).
PNG
media_image6.png
667
668
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Xue Fig. 2
Claims 6, 7, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riemenschneider in view of McCarty, further in view of Xue et al. (CN-110726633-A), hereinafter Xue.
As to claims 6 and 13, Riemenschneider does not explicitly disclose wherein the line light is provided to generate light pulses of a predetermined length and intensity at a predetermined light pulse frequency, and wherein the predetermined light pulse frequency of the line light is operatively coupled to the one of the unwinding station, first stretching station and second stretching station, such that the predetermined light pulse frequency is substantially directly proportional to a throughfeed speed of the stretch film in the relevant station.
McCarty, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the light is operatively coupled to the one of the unwinding station, first stretching station and second stretching station (McCarty fig. 5; fig. 7A-7B; The light 18A enters the high-speed video camera 18B, where the video is captured from above the clamp system 60, i.e. the stretching station, as it closes on the film sample, wherein the stretch is shown in the initial and final frames of the video in fig. 7A-7B. Thus, the light is operatively coupled to the stretching station), such that the light is substantially directly proportional to a throughfeed speed of the stretch film in the relevant station (McCarty col. 7 lines 1-14; fig. 5; fig. 7A-7B; The light 18A enters the camera 18B. The camera captures the video starting before the clamp system 60 closes the film sample, and ending after the clamp system 60 closes the film sample. Thus, the light is substantially directly proportional to the throughfeed speed of the stretch film. Specifically, the light duration increases as the throughfeed speed of the stretching increases).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Riemenschneider to incorporate the teachings of McCarty to include wherein the light is operatively coupled to the one of the unwinding station, first stretching station and second stretching station such that the light is substantially directly proportional to a throughfeed speed of the stretch film in the relevant station; for the advantage of testing efficacy of the stretching system (McCarty col. 7 lines 1-5).
Still lacking the limitation such as wherein the line light is provided to generate light pulses of a predetermined length and intensity at a predetermined light pulse frequency.
Xue, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the line light is provided to generate light pulses of a predetermined length and intensity at a predetermined light pulse frequency (Xue fig. 2; page 15 lines 13-19; The image capture system comprises the steps of setting the current pulse duration of the light source controller 10 to the LED lamp 9, and setting exposure duration T (i.e. length) and frequency F of the industrial camera 7. The line light is described by Xue as the pulse trigger signal, which generates the light pulses to the industrial camera 7 at a predetermined duration and frequency relative to a speed of rotation. LED lamps emit light at an intensity inherent to the light).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Riemenschneider in view of McCarty to incorporate the teachings of Xue to include wherein the line light is provided to generate light pulses of a predetermined length and intensity at a predetermined light pulse frequency; for the advantage of controlling when data is collected in a high-speed environment (Xue page 15 lines 3-9).
As to claims 7 and 14, Riemenschneider in view of McCarty does not explicitly disclose wherein the line light and the line camera are operatively coupled such that the image recording frequency is substantially synchronous to the light pulse frequency.
Xue, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the line light and the line camera are operatively coupled such that the image recording frequency is substantially synchronous to the light pulse frequency (Xue page 15 lines 3-4; If and only when the LED light 9 emits light, the photosensitive element of the industrial camera 7 receives 3 the light signal, converts the light signal into an image signal, and transmits it to the computer 13 through the data line. Thus, industrial camera 7 image recording frequency and the LED light 9 pulse frequency are in synch. Therefore, the line light and the line camera are operatively coupled such that the image recording frequency is substantially synchronous to the light pulse frequency).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Riemenschneider in view of McCarty to incorporate the teachings of Xue to include wherein the line light and the line camera are operatively coupled such that the image recording frequency is substantially synchronous to the light pulse frequency; for the advantage of increased control over the system (Xue page 15 lines 3-4).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEMAYA NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9078. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 am - 5:00pm ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571) 272-2287. 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.
/KEMAYA NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877