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 .
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10-13, 15-21, 23, 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In each of claims 1 and 27:
in the 2nd clause beginning “optionally”, as worded, the clause is ambiguous as to whether the recited “second filtration step” is optionally performed in conjunction with an optional second carbonation step, or if instead, is definitely performed and is a required, positively recited limitation of the claim;
the clause of “at least one first sensor device is used to detect first measurement data relating to the mixture of raw juice and lime milk and/or the mixture of first thin juice and lime milk during or after the first or second liming step” is ambiguous since it is unclear whether the method encompasses there being none of, one or more than one sensor device for detecting each of the two types of recited mixtures and respectively during or after the first or second liming step, with “the…second liming step” lacking antecedent basis since it refers back to a method step which is optional;
the clause of “at least one second sensor device is used to detect first measurement data relating to the mixture of raw juice and precipitated non-sugar substances and/or the mixture of first thin juice and precipitated non-sugar substances during or after the first or second carbonation step” is ambiguous since it is unclear whether the method encompasses there being none of, one or more than one sensor device for detecting each of the two types of recited mixtures and respectively during or after the first or second carbonation step, with “the…second carbonation step” lacking antecedent basis since it refers back to a method step which is optional; and,
the meaning of “at least one third sensor device…third measurement data relating to the first and/or second thin juice” is also ambiguous, since the meaning and scope of “related” is unclear.
In claim 3, “the…second liming step” again lacks antecedent basis, since it refers back to a method step in claim 1 which is optionally performed.
In claim 4, “the…second filtration step” and “the…liming step” again each lack antecedent basis, since the clause refers back to method steps in claim 1 which may be interpreted as optional and which are recited as optionally performed, respectively; and
the claim is vague as to whether “added amount of dextranase” refers to adding dextranase with one or more of the process steps definitively or optionally recited in claim 1, or if such adding would occur separately from other of the method steps.
In claim 6, “the first sensor device”, “the second sensor device” and “the third sensor device” (each singular) are inconsistent with recitations of “at least one” of each of the sensor devices (singular or plural) in claim 1.
In claim 7, the claim as a whole is ambiguous as to how whether “geometric property” refers to a single property, or to respective properties of particles and air inclusions, or to respective properties of first, second and third of the image data introduced in claim 6; and
“the particles and/or air inclusions” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 8, the claim is again ambiguous as to how whether “geometric property” refers to a single property, or to respective properties of particles and air inclusions.
In claim 10, “the…second liming step” again lacks antecedent basis, since it refers back to a method step in claim 1 which is optionally performed.
In claim 11, again, the claim is vague as to whether “added amount of dextranase” refers to adding dextranase with one or more of the process steps definitively or optionally recited in claim 1, or if such adding would occur separately from other of the method steps.
In each of claims 12, 15, 16, 18 and 19, respectively, “the first sensor device”, “the second sensor device” and “the third sensor device”, respectively, (each singular) are again, inconsistent with recitations of “at least one” of each of the sensor devices (singular or plural) in claim 1.
In claim 13, “the pectins and/or dextrans” lacks antecedent basis, it is unclear how the recited “one or more filter devices” relate or correspond to the “first filtration step” and “second filtration step” recited in claim 1; and
“for example filter candles” is indefinite as to whether presence of filter candles is positively recited.
In claim 17, “the…second filtration step” and “the…liming step” again each lack antecedent basis, since the clause refers back to a method step in claim 1 which may be interpreted as optional and optionally performed.
Also, in claims 19 and 20, recitations of the “first, second and third bypass lines” are unclear as to their functional or structural relationship or “nexus” to the respective method steps recited in claim 1, it being unclear what is being bypassed and from what first location to what second location the respective bypass lines conduct the recited thin juice and respective other materials.
In claim 20, line 3 “the bypass line” (singular) is inconsistent with “the first, second and/or third bypass line” (singular or plural); and
it is unclear whether “carrying out a measurement” corresponds to or refers back to obtaining measurement data with the recited sensor devices.
In each of claims 21 and 23, the clauses beginning “in particular” are each indefinite since it is unclear whether what follows are positively recited, required claim limitations.
Also in claim 23, the meaning and scope of “acrystal habit of calcium carbonate” is unclear, the phrase being grammatically confusing or ‘non-idiomatic.
In claim 24, in the 1st “optionally…” clause, “the subsequent process step” is inconsistent with preceding recitations of “subsequent process steps” (plural).
Claim 27 repeats the same 112 (b) issues as discussed above for claims 1 and 27;
in addition, it is unclear whether it is the “sugar production plant” or only the “juice purification facility” which is configured to conduct the process steps which follow, and in the clause beginning “First”, “add lime milk is first added” is non-idiomatic.
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 19, 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by patent publication DE 102017113132A1 (provided with applicant’s IDS statement) and accompanied by the Machine English translation (‘132). Paragraph numbers of the applied Machine translation are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
For claim 1, ‘132 discloses: A process for producing thin juice for the production of sugar,
wherein lime milk, in a first liming step, is first added to a raw juice to obtain a mixture of raw juice and lime milk [0002 “raw sugar beet juice…added to the sugar juice in the form of lime juice”], and
carbon dioxide, in a first carbonation step, is then added to the mixture of raw juice and lime milk to obtain a mixture of raw juice and precipitated non-sugar substances (see figures 2 and 3 and see [0015 and 0025-0027 re filtration following the liming step which includes “several carbonation stages”, necessarily requiring addition of carbon dioxide], and in [0025, re the filtration accompanying carbonation concerning separation, thus “precipitation” of “foreign substances” on filtering surfaces]) and then,
in a first filtration step, the mixture of raw juice and precipitated non-sugar substances is filtered to obtain a first thin juice [0025 re the filtration resulting in thin juice],
optionally, in a second liming step, lime milk is added to the first thin juice to obtain a mixture of first thin juice and lime milk {not required, since claimed as “optional”}, and
optionally, in a second carbonation step, carbon dioxide is added to the first thin juice or the mixture of first thin juice and lime milk to obtain a mixture of first thin juice and precipitated non-sugar substances [0025-0027 re plural filters and the filtration system having several carbonation stages], and
in a second filtration step, the mixture of first thin juice and precipitated non-sugar substances is filtered to obtain a second thin juice [0025-0027 re plural filters and the filtration system having several carbonation stages],
characterized in that at least one first sensor device used to detect first measurement data relating to the mixture of raw juice and lime milk and/or the mixture of first thin juice and lime milk during or after the first or second liming step, and/or
at least one second sensor device is used to detect second measurement data relating to the mixture of raw juice and precipitated non-sugar substances and/or the mixture of first thin juice and precipitated non-sugar substances during or after the first or second carbonation step, and/or
at least one third sensor device is used to detect third measurement data relating to the first and/or second thin juice ([0020 and 0033 re sensors for assessing quality of raw sugar juice, infrared absorption, viscosity, conductivity and light transmittance of the juice located at the outlet of a bypass] and [0027 and 0030 re determination of differences of juice quality between the raw sugar juice and flow in a bypass having an ultrasonic unit in an inlet to at least one of plural filters of a first carbonation stage]) .
Publication ‘132 further discloses:
for claim 3, wherein at least one process parameter of the first and/or second liming step is set depending on the first measurement data and/or the second measurement data and/or the third measurement data;
wherein the process parameter is an added amount of lime milk and/or a target value of the pH value and/or a concentration of the lime milk and/or an added amount of precipitated calcium carbonate and/or a withdrawal amount of carbonated juice [0004-0005 regarding a flow rate process parameter of the limed juices through the filters, i.e. “necessarily effecting a set flow rate through the liming process, being set via a process control system, corresponding to a monitored and measured flow rate or amount of filtration being withdrawn through the carbonation process, corresponding to a withdrawn amount of carbonated juice] ;
for claim 4, at least one process parameter of the first and/or second carbonation step is set depending on the first measurement data and/or the second measurement data and/or the third measurement data;
and/or at least one process parameters of the first and/or second filtration step is set depending on the first measurement and/or the second measurement data and/or the third measurement data
at least one process parameter of the first and/or second liming step is set depending on the first measurement data and/or the second measurement data and/or the third measurement data; and/or
wherein the first, second, and/or third measurement data comprises a content indication of the pectins and/or dextrans, wherein an added amount of dextranase is determined based on the content indication of the pectins and/or dextrans [0005 re signaling a plant operator to replace filter cloths of at least one filter through a process control system and monitoring the throughput of each filter via measuring points];
for claim 19, wherein the first sensor device is arranged in a first bypass line, into which the mixture of raw juice and lime milk or the mixture of first thin juice and lime milk is introduced during or after the first or second liming step, and a standing mixture is generated to detect the first measurement data, and/or
the second sensor device is arranged in a second bypass line, into which the mixture of raw juice and precipitated non-sugar substances or the mixture of first thin juice and precipitated non-sugar substances is introduced during or after the first or second carbonation step, and a standing mixture is generated for detecting the second measurement data, and/or
the third sensor device is arranged in a third bypass line, into which the first or second thin juice is introduced and a standing thin juice is generated to detect the third measurement data [0020 and 0033 re sensors for assessing quality of raw sugar juice, infrared absorption, viscosity, conductivity and light transmittance of the juice located at the outlet of a bypass].
Publication ‘132 also discloses for claim 24, A process for producing sugar, wherein thin juice is produced [0001 and 0002] according to a process according to claim 1 (see above description of claim 1 limitations and corresponding disclosure of publication ‘132), and
sugar is produced from the thin juice in subsequent process steps [0002 re crystallization, cooling and drying]:
optionally, wherein at least one process parameter of any one of the subsequent process steps is set depending on the first measurement data and/or the second measurement data and/or third measurement data {such optional step is not a required claim limitation},
wherein the subsequent process step is a thickening step or a crystallization step or a separation step [0002 re crystallization, cooling and drying];
optionally, wherein to obtain the raw juice, an extraction step is carried out to obtain the raw juice from sugar beet pulp {such optional step is not a required claim limitation, [0015 re raw sugar juice being produced in an extraction plant]},
wherein at least one process parameter of the extraction step is set depending on the first measurement data and/or the second measurement data and/or the third measurement data {since setting of at least one process parameter being set depending on first, second and/or third measurement data is recited as optionally, such ‘wherein step is also deemed to be optional and not a required claim limitation}.
Publication ‘132 also discloses for claim 27,
A sugar production plant with a juice purification facility [0001-0002 re beet sugar production, taking place in several production steps in a continuous process], which is configured to:
first, in a first liming step, add lime milk is first added to a raw juice to obtain a mixture of raw juice and lime milk [0002 “raw sugar beet juice…added to the sugar juice in the form of lime juice”], and then,
in a first carbonation step, add carbon dioxide to the mixture of raw juice and lime milk to obtain a mixture of raw juice and precipitated non-sugar substances (see figures 2 and 3 and see [0015 and 0025-0027 re filtration following the liming step which includes “several carbonation stages”, necessarily requiring addition of carbon dioxide], and in [0025, re the filtration accompanying carbonation concerning separation, thus “precipitation” of “foreign substances” on filtering surfaces]), and then,
in a first filtration step, filter the mixture of raw juice and precipitated non-sugar substances to obtain a first thin juice [0025 re the filtration resulting in thin juice],
optionally, in a second liming step, add lime milk to the first thin juice to obtain a mixture of first thin juice and lime milk {not required, since claimed as “optional”},, and
optionally, in a second carbonation step, add carbon dioxide to the first thin juice or the mixture of first thin juice and lime milk to obtain a mixture of first thin juice and precipitated non-sugar substances [0025-0027 re plural filters and the filtration system having several carbonation stages] and,
in a second filtration step, filter the mixture of first thin juice and precipitated non-sugar substances to obtain a second thin juice [0025-0027 re plural filters and the filtration system having several carbonation stages], characterized by:
at least one first sensor device for detecting first measurement data relating to the mixture of raw juice and lime milk and/or the mixture of first thin juice and lime milk during or after the first or second liming step, and/or
at least one second sensor device for detecting second measurement data relating to the mixture of raw juice and precipitated non-sugar substances and/or the mixture of first thin juice and precipitated non-sugar substances during or after the first or second carbonation step, and/or
at least a third sensor device for detecting third measurement data relating to the first and/or second thin juice ([0020 and 0033 re sensors for assessing quality of raw sugar juice, infrared absorption, viscosity, conductivity and light transmittance of the juice located at the outlet of a bypass] and [0027 and 0030 re determination of differences of juice quality between the raw sugar juice and flow in a bypass having an ultrasonic unit in an inlet to at least one of plural filters of a first carbonation stage]).
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.
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.
Claims 6, 12, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over patent publication DE 102017113132A1 (provided with applicant’s IDS statement) and accompanied by the Machine English translation (‘132) in view of Minvielle et al PGPUBS Document US 2018/0232689 (Minvielle). Paragraph numbers of the applied Machine translation and of the PGPUBS document are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
Claim 6 differs by requiring the process characterized in that the first sensor device has a first optical imaging device and the first measurement data comprises first image data, and/or
the second sensor device has a second optical imaging device and the second measurement data comprises second image data, and/or
the third sensor device has a third optical imaging device and the third measurement data comprises third image data.
Minvielle teaches production of beverages having sugar content and also having nutritional value [0005], and monitoring of such beverage nutritional values with a collection of sensors, providing feedback to a controller, resulting in controlled manufacture of products having better nutritional and aesthetic, hence better consumer value [0021-0022 and 0092 re nutritional and aesthetic value and 0110 regarding process control of such food and beverage production].
Minvielle teaches utilizing sensors including optical sensors employing various forms of optical imaging technology [0271-0275], with such type of sensors facilitating more accurate control of the nutritional and aesthetic value of the food or beverage products.
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art of producing sugar products from fruit juices, to have augmented the ‘132 process, by employing the optical imaging sensors taught by Minvielle, in order to improve process control to produce products having an improved nutritional and aesthetic value.
Claim 12 differs by requiring the process characterized in that the first sensor device has a first near-infrared spectroscopy device and the first measurement data comprises a first content indication of an ingredient, and/or
the second sensor device has a second near-infrared spectroscopy device and the second measurement data comprises a second content indication of an ingredient, and/or
the third sensor device has a third near-infrared spectroscopy device and the third measurement data comprises a third content indication of an ingredient.
Minvielle teaches production of beverages having sugar content and also having nutritional value [0005], and monitoring of such beverage nutritional values with a collection of sensors, providing feedback to a controller, resulting in controlled manufacture of products having better nutritional and aesthetic, hence better consumer value [0021-0022 and 0092 re nutritional and aesthetic value and 0110 regarding process control of such food and beverage production].
Minvielle teaches utilizing sensors including optical sensors including employing various forms of near infrared and spectroscopy technology [0271-0277, particularly in [0273, 0276 and 0277], with such type of sensors facilitating more accurate control of the nutritional and aesthetic value of the food or beverage products.
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art of producing sugar products from fruit juices, to have augmented the ‘132 process, by employing the optical sensors including near infrared spectroscopy technology taught by Minvielle, in order to improve process control to produce products having an improved nutritional and aesthetic value.
Claim 16 differs by requiring wherein the third sensor device has a turbidity and/or color sensor and the third measurement data comprises a turbidity and/or color indication.
Minvielle teaches production of beverages having sugar content and also having nutritional value [0005], and monitoring of such beverage nutritional values with a collection of sensors, providing feedback to a controller, resulting in controlled manufacture of products having better nutritional and aesthetic, hence better consumer value [0021-0022 and 0092 re nutritional and aesthetic value and 0110 regarding process control of such food and beverage production].
Minvielle teaches utilizing sensors including optical sensors including employing various forms of color imaging technology [0271-0277, particularly in [0273, 0274, 0276 and 0277], with such type of sensors facilitating more accurate control of the nutritional and aesthetic value of the food or beverage products.
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art of producing sugar products from fruit juices, to have augmented the ‘132 process, by employing the optical color imaging sensors taught by Minvielle, in order to improve process control to produce products having an improved nutritional and aesthetic value.
Regarding claim 17, dependent on claim 16, Publication ‘132 teaches or suggests wherein, a process parameter of the first and/or second filtration step is set depending on indication of varied sensors [0132 regarding control of an ultrasonic transducer at the inlet to at least one of plural filters based on sensor input]. Thus, (‘132) in view of Minvielle cumulatively suggests a process parameter of, the turbidity and/or color indication.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over patent publication DE 102017113132A1 (provided with applicant’s IDS statement) and accompanied by the Machine English translation (‘132) in view of Carter et al PGPUBS Document US 2004/0231663 (Carter). Paragraph numbers of the applied Machine translation and of the PGPUBS document are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
Claim 18 further differs by requiring wherein the third sensor device has a Brix sensor and the third measurement data comprises a sugar content.
Carter teaches a process for sugar preparation from sugar beets comprising purification by liming, carbonation and filtration steps [0002-0003], in part replaced by method seps employing heating, filtration, evaporation and crystallization [0003-0036]. Carter teaches to employ a process control system comprising analysis, i.e. utilization of a sensor device to measure Brix and “purity”, generally, or sugar content of process streams and of the final product [Table 1 and 2 and [0122-0126].
Carter suggests monitoring of such parameters being utilized to produce products having a good taste and aroma, hence being of higher commercial value.
Hence it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan of producing sugar products from beet juice, to have modified the ‘132 process to employ the monitoring including of brix and sugar content, as taught by Carter, so as to produce products having a good taste and aroma, hence being of higher commercial value.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 20, 21 and 23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 7 would distinguish and be non-obvious over all of the prior art in view of further recitation of a geometric property of particles and/or air inclusions contained in the respective raw juice or thin juice is/are determined based on the first, second, and/or third image data.
None of the prior art, either provided by applicants with the IDS statements, or any of the prior art cited with this Office Action on PTO Form 892 fairly teach or suggest such determination(s) of a geometric property of particles and/or air inclusions contained in the respective raw juice or thin juice
Claims 8, 10 and 11 would distinguish and be non-obvious in view of their dependence on claim 7 which is deemed to distinguish and be non-obvious.
Claim 13 would distinguish and be non-obvious over all of the prior art in view of further recitation of the process being characterized in that the first, second, and/or third measurement data comprise a content indication of the pectins and/or dextrans, and
wherein a status indication of a status of one or more filter devices, is determined on the basis of the content indication of the pectins and/or dextrans used in the filtration step.
None of the prior art, either provided by applicants with the IDS statements, or any of the prior art cited with this Office Action on PTO Form 892 fairly teach or suggest the first, second, and/or third measurement data comprise a content indication of the pectins and/or dextrans, and wherein a status indication of a status of one or more filter devices, is determined on the basis of the content indication of the pectins and/or dextrans. Publication ‘132 generally teaches to minimize use of pectins and dextrans.
Claim 15 would distinguish and be non-obvious over all of the prior art in view of further recitation of the process, wherein the first, second and/or third sensor device has a nitrogen sensor and the 1st, 2nd and/or 3rd measurement data comprises a nitrogen concentration. None of the prior art, either provided by applicants with the IDS statements, or any of the prior art cited with this Office Action on PTO Form 892 fairly teach or suggest such form of sensor device or obtaining of measurement data related to any gas presence or concentration, or specifically to nitrogen concentration.
Claim 20 would distinguish and be non-obvious in view of further recitation of wherein, after carrying out a measurement in the first, second and/or third bypass line, a self-cleaning procedure for cleaning the bypass line is carried out.
None of the prior art, either provided by applicants with the IDS statements, or any of the prior art cited with this Office Action on PTO Form 892 fairly teach or suggest wherein, after carrying out a measurement in the first, second and/or third bypass line, a self-cleaning procedure for cleaning the bypass line being carried out.
Claim 21 would distinguish and be non-obvious over all of the prior art in view of further recitation of the process, wherein a particle size of particles, or rate of descent of particles, is determined based on 1st, 2nd and/or 3rd measurement data . None of the prior art, either provided by applicants with the IDS statements, or any of the prior art cited with this Office Action on PTO Form 892 fairly teach or suggest determination of size or rate of descent of particles based on the 1st, 2nd and/or 3rd measurement data, as claimed in claim 1 from which claim 21 depends, relating to the process steps of liming, carbonation and filtration.
The prior art does not teach or suggest processes which would involve changes in particle size such as flocculation or coagulation, associated with such process steps. Although ‘132 does discuss subsequent crystallization, such method step would concern production of white crystal sugar particles, not relating to particle size or descent associated with process steps of liming, carbonation and filtration .
Claim 23 would distinguish and be non-obvious in view of further recitation of the process being characterized in that a crystal habit (i.e. “crystal property”) of calcium carbonate is determined based on the first measurement data.
None of the prior art, either provided by applicants with the IDS statements, or any of the prior art cited with this Office Action on PTO Form 892 fairly teach or suggest a crystal habit (i.e. “crystal property”) of calcium carbonate being determined based on the first measurement data.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional prior art is made of record concerning production of sugar products from juice or production of juice containing sugar content, involving process steps of liming, carbonation, filtration and other steps for refining the juice or resulting products containing sugar.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner Joseph Drodge at his direct government formal facsimile phone number telephone number of 571-272-1140. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from approximately 8:00 AM to 1:00PM and 2:30 PM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron, of Technology Center Unit 1773, can reached at 571-272-0475.
The telephone number, for official, formal communications, for the examining group where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Examiner. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. Visit https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/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.
JWD
01/22/2026
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773