DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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.
Examiner’s Amendment
The examiner proposed an examiner’s amendment via email on 18 September 2025 that would put the application in condition for allowance. See the Appendix to this Office Action. However, the examiner never received a response from the applicant.
Abstract Objections
The abstract is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification Objections
The specification is objected to because of the following informalities: in regards to paragraph 2 of page 3, it is improper to refer to particular claim numbers within the specification as claim numbers are subject to change throughout prosecution. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In re claims 1 and 23, “the outside with” in ¶ c should be –an outside by–; “the collecting pot lid” in ¶ e should be –a collecting pot lid–
In re claim 2, “the outside with” should be –an outside by–
In re claim 3, “and/or that” should be –and/or such that–
In re claim 4, “(26)” should be deleted to be consistent; “the radial direction” should be –a radial direction”.
In re claim 6, “the underside”, “the radial direction”, and “the adapter shaft” should be –an–, –a– and –an–, respectively.
In re claim 8, “the engagement” should be –an engagement–
In re claim 10, “claim 1” should be –claim 9– to provide antecedent basis for various features of claims 11 and 12.
In re claim 11, “the latter”, “the outer contour”, and “the inner contour” should be –the first sleeve receptacle–, –an outer contour–, and –an inner contour–, respectively.
In re claim 12, “the direction”, “the region”, and “the contour section” should be –a direction–, –a region–, and –a contour section–, respectively.
In re claims 13-18, at least one feature of each claim lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims; the applicant is required to review the claims and make changes as necessary to ensure proper antecedent basis is provided for each feature.
In re claim 14, “with a substance-to-substance bond” would be better rendered as –by a substance-to-substance bond–
In re claim 16, “of the cutting disk” would be better rendered as –toward the cutting disk–
In re claim 17, “its inner jacket” should be –an inner jacket–
In re claim 19, the claim would be in better form if “tapers in a funnel-like manner in the direction of” were replaced with –is tapered toward–
In re claim 20, “in the direction of” should be –toward– and, based on that, “of the chopping tool” should be –the chopping tool–
In re claim 21, “supports itself on” should be –is supported by–
In re claim 22, “a tab” and “a grip” should be –the tab– and –the grip–
Appropriate correction for the above list of issues is required.
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 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) 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):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” 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 entirely performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” 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 the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for entirely performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” 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). The rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites a function without reciting sufficient structure to entirely perform the recited function, and when there is no evidence that the claim limitation is a term of art known to be used to represent sufficiently definite structure.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) unless otherwise indicated in an Office Action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) unless otherwise indicated in an Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL — The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement; any claims not directly addressed are only rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for being dependent on a rejected base claim. The claim(s) contain(s) subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
In re claims 14 and 15: the claims are directed to a separate embodiment than that of claim 1 (i.e., to the embodiment of fig. 4), and it does not appear that the embodiments of each claim have been disclosed as being combinable. Claim 1 is not generic since it requires that portion 20 of the support shaft be received in the lid, whereas in the embodiment of fig. 4, no portion of the shaft 19 is received in the lid. Therefore, the inventions of the combination of claims 1 and 14, and of claims 1 and 15, was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed inventions. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1-23 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. Any claims not directly addressed are only rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
In re claims 1 and 23: the phrase “such as” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Further, it is unclear if “the operating state setup” is intended to be required in said claims since it is introduced in the preambles and, thus, not positively recited. The recitation within the preambles seems to imply that it is not required but the recitation within ¶ c of said claims seems to imply that it is required, thereby rendering said claims indefinite.
In re claims 8, 17 and 22: the term “several” renders the claims indefinite since metes and bounds for the term have not been set forth.
In re claim 13: “simplified” is a subjective and/or relative term that renders the claim indefinite.
In re claim 14: it is unclear which structure “which” in the third to last line of the claim refers to.
In re claim 21: it is unclear which structure the first instance of “which” refers to.
Appropriate correction for the above list of issues is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS — Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 already recites all of the features of this claim, and this claim is broader than claim 1 due to all of the “configured to” language in this claim. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office Action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 9-13, 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Timo Plogstedt - Philip Bonmann oHG (DE 20 2021 105 193 U1), hereafter ‘Timo’, in view of Wilcock (GB 2,591,228 A).
In re claim 1: Timo discloses a food processor arrangement, comprising a food processor assembly and a chopping assembly, wherein the chopping assembly and the food processor assembly are assembled to form an operating state setup in order to provide a chopping operating state of the food processor arrangement for chopping food, such as vegetables and/or fruit,
wherein the food processor assembly (fig. 6-7) comprises:
a drive unit 36, 37;
a rotatably mounted rotation unit (having cutting edges 28), which, in the operating state setup, is configured to be rotated by using the drive unit;
wherein the chopping assembly comprises:
a collecting pot 7 for collecting chopped food, wherein the collecting pot has a collecting pot interior, which is limited to an outside by a collecting pot jacket (sidewalls) wherein, in the operating state setup, a collecting pot opening located opposite the collecting pot bottom is covered with a collecting pot lid;
an adapter shaft 24, which, in the operating state setup, is coupled with a first adapter shaft end (bottom end) to the rotation unit, so that a rotation of the rotation unit transfers directly to the adapter shaft, wherein, in the operating state setup, the adapter shaft 24 extends with a second adapter shaft end (top end) located opposite the first adapter shaft end all the way into the interior of the collecting pot 7,
a chopping tool 34 (see fig. 6-7).
Timo is silent regarding the collecting pot having collecting pot bottom and a collecting pot lid.
However, Wilcock teaches a chopping assembly (fig. 1-3) comprising a collecting pot 110 including a collecting pot bottom 23 and a collecting pot lid 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Timo to include a collecting pot bottom and a collecting pot lid, as taught by Wilcock, thereby providing Timo with means to prevent leaking of liquid or chopped food past the ejection disc 33 and onto the lid 3 of the preparation pot 6, while the lid taught by Wilcock provides access to the interior of the collecting pot for purposes such as cleaning the chopping tool.
Timo is silent regarding a support shaft, which is separate from the adapter shaft and which is received with a first support shaft end in a collecting pot lid, so as to be secured against axial displacement with respect to a support shaft longitudinal axis and which is rotatably mounted about the support shaft longitudinal axis, wherein the support shaft has a second support shaft end, which is located opposite the first support shaft end and which, in the operating state setup, is coupled to the second adapter shaft end, so that a rotation of the rotation unit and of the adapter shaft transfers directly to the support shaft.
However, Wilcock further teaches a support shaft 4, which is separate from an adapter shaft 9 and which is received with a first support shaft end in a collecting pot lid 1 so as to be secured against axial displacement with respect to a support shaft longitudinal axis and which is rotatably mounted about the support shaft longitudinal axis, wherein the support shaft 4 has a second support shaft end, which is located opposite the first support shaft end and which, in the operating state setup, is coupled to a second adapter shaft end (top end of 9), so that a rotation of the adapter shaft 9 transfers directly to the support shaft 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Timo in the claimed manner, as taught by Wilcock, because applying known techniques (an adapter shaft cooperating with a support shaft) to yield predictable results (driving a chopping tool of a chopping assembly) requires only routine skill in the art (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Note that the collecting pots of Wilcock and Timo only collect chopped food during operation, whereas the collecting pot of the applicant’s disclosed invention is configured to both collect and store chopped food during operation. However, this would not be a patentable distinction in view of Wang et al. (US 2024/0148190 A1), see fig. 11 and ¶ 52; and Kolar et al. (US 2020/0205613 A1), see fig. 2A-2B.
In re claim 2, which depends on claim 1: Timo discloses the food processor assembly has a preparation pot 6 comprising a preparation pot interior, which is limited to the outside by a preparation pot bottom (bottom wall) and a preparation pot jacket (sidewall), wherein, in the operating state setup, a preparation pot opening located opposite the preparation pot bottom is covered by a preparation pot lid 3, wherein the preparation pot lid has a preparation pot filling opening 8 with a smaller diameter than the preparation pot opening, and wherein the rotation unit (having the blades 28) is arranged in a vicinity of the preparation pot bottom (see fig. 6-7).
In re claim 3, which depends on claim 2: Timo discloses in the operating state setup, the collecting pot 7 is attached to the preparation pot lid 3 of the preparation pot 6, such that a collecting pot collar 11, 12, which is arranged on an underside of the collecting pot bottom, bears on the preparation pot lid 3, and/or that the underside of the collecting pot bottom bears on a preparation pot lid collar 9, which is arranged on the preparation pot lid 3 (see fig. 6-7 and § [0053]).
In re claim 4, which depends on claim 2: modified Timo teaches an adapter shaft through opening is formed in the collecting pot bottom (as taught by Wilcock in claim 1 above), through which the adapter shaft 24 (of Timo) is guided in the operating state setup, wherein, in the operating state setup, the adapter shaft through opening is arranged centrally to the preparation pot filling opening 8 in the radial direction, and wherein the adapter shaft through opening has a smaller diameter than the preparation pot filling opening (see fig. 3 of Wilcock, the through opening in the collecting pot bottom 23 is just large enough to pass the shaft through).
In re claim 5, which depends on claim 1: modified Timo teaches in the operating state setup, the adapter shaft 24 (of Timo), starting at the first adapter shaft end coupled to the rotation unit (having blades 28), extends through the interior of the preparation pot 6 and the adapter shaft through opening all the way into the interior of the collecting pot 7, wherein the second adapter shaft end ends in the collecting pot interior (see fig. 6-7 of Timo).
In re claim 9, which depends on claim 1: Timo discloses a polygonal outer contour is formed on the second adapter shaft end 29 in a contour section 32 (fig. 5).
In re claim 10, which depends on claim 1: modified Timo the support shaft 4 comprises a support sleeve which, on a first support sleeve end, has a first sleeve receptacle which forms a second support shaft end (bottom end) having an inner contour (see fig. 3).
Modified Timo does not explicitly teach any particular shape for the inner contour of the first sleeve receptacle. However, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Timo such that the inner contour is polygonal, since it has been held that merely changing the shape of a prior art feature is an obvious matter of engineering choice (MPEP § 2144.04, subsection IV.B).
In re claim 11, which depends on claim 10: modified Timo teaches in the operating state setup, a contour section (upper end of adapter shaft 9 of fig. 3 of Wilcock) engages at least partially with the first sleeve receptacle (in the bottom end of support shaft 4) and forms a non-positive and/or positive connection with the first sleeve receptacle, wherein the outer contour of the contour section corresponds to the inner contour of the first sleeve receptacle (fig. 3).
In re claim 12, which depends on claim 1: Timo discloses the adapter shaft 24 is formed to taper in a direction of the second adapter shaft end (top end) at least in a region of a contour section (the region between 27 and 29).
Note that even if the claim were amended to require the contour section to be at an upper end portion of the adapter shaft, changing the shape is an obvious modification under MPEP § 2144.04, subsection IV.B.
In re claim 13, which depends on claim 1: modified Timo is silent regarding in a region of a first support sleeve end of a support sleeve, the support sleeve has a beveled run-on section, which provides for a simplified coupling of the second support shaft end to the second adapter shaft end.
However, Wilcock teaches in a region of a first support sleeve end of a support sleeve (bottom end of support shaft 4), the support sleeve has a beveled run-on section (corresponding to the top end portion of adapter shaft 9), which provides for a simplified coupling of the second support shaft end to the second adapter shaft end (see fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the support shaft of Timo with one configured like that of Wilcock, because selecting from known types of support shafts allowing for sufficient functionality would be obvious to the ordinary artisan.
In re claim 16, which depends on claim 1: modified Timo teaches the collecting pot lid 1 (fig. 3 of Wilcock) has a filling nozzle 103, via which food to be chopped in the operating state setup is pushed toward a cutting disk using a pusher 22 (fig. 6 of Timo) which is configured to be plugged in to the filling nozzle.
In re claim 21, which depends on claim 2: Timo discloses a rotation lock 13 is arranged on an outer jacket surface of the collecting pot jacket (sidewalls of 7), which has a support flange (to which 13 is attached), which, in the operating state setup, supports itself on a tab and/or a grip arranged on the preparation pot lid (see fig. 8 and § [0067]).
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wilcock, in view of Timo.
In re claim 1: Wilcock discloses a food processor arrangement, comprising a food processor assembly and a chopping assembly, wherein the chopping assembly and the food processor assembly are assembled to form an operating state setup in order to provide a chopping operating state of the food processor arrangement for chopping food, such as vegetables and/or fruit,
wherein the food processor assembly (fig. 1-3) comprises:
a. a drive unit (motor within housing 11; pg. 12, last line);
b. a rotatably mounted rotation unit (drive attachments such as rotary blades), which, in the operating state setup, is configured to be rotated by using the drive unit (pg. 13, ln. 5-7);
wherein the chopping assembly comprises:
c. a collecting pot 110 for collecting chopped food, wherein the collecting pot has a collecting pot interior, which is limited to an outside with a collecting pot bottom 23 and a collecting pot jacket 20 wherein, in the operating state setup, a collecting pot opening located opposite the collecting pot bottom is covered with a collecting pot lid 1;
d. an adapter shaft 9;
e. a support shaft 4, which is separate from the adapter shaft and which is received with a first support shaft end in the collecting pot lid 1 so as to be secured against axial displacement with respect to a support shaft longitudinal axis and which is rotatably mounted about the support shaft longitudinal axis, wherein the support shaft 4 has a second support shaft end, which is located opposite the first support shaft end and which, in the operating state setup, is coupled to the second adapter shaft end (top end of 9), so that a rotation of the adapter shaft 9 transfers directly to the support shaft 4;
f. a chopping tool 2, which, in the operating state setup, is supported by the support shaft 4 and is arranged in a rotationally fixed manner relative to said support shaft 4.
Wilcock does not explicitly disclose that: in the operating state setup, is coupled with a first adapter shaft end to the rotation unit, so that a rotation of the rotation unit transfers directly to the adapter shaft, wherein, in the operating state setup, the adapter shaft extends with a second adapter shaft end located opposite the first adapter shaft end all the way into the interior of the collecting pot; and a rotation of both the rotation unit and the adapter shaft transfers directly to the support shaft.
However, Timo, teaches a food processor arrangement, comprising a food processor assembly and a chopping assembly (fig. 6-7), wherein an adapter shaft 24, which, in the operating state setup, is coupled with a first adapter shaft end (bottom end) to a rotation unit (having blades 28), so that a rotation of the rotation unit transfers directly to the adapter shaft, wherein, in the operating state setup, the adapter shaft 24 extends with a second adapter shaft end (top end) located opposite the first adapter shaft end all the way into the interior of the collecting pot 7. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wilcock in the claimed manner, because applying known techniques to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)). The proposed modification results in Wilcock being configured such that a rotation of the rotation unit and of the adapter shaft transfers directly to the support shaft.
Note that the collecting pots of Wilcock and Timo only collect chopped food during operation, whereas the collecting pot of the applicant’s disclosed invention is configured to both collect and store chopped food during operation. However, this is not a patentable distinction in view of Wang et al. (US 2024/0148190 A1), see fig. 11 and ¶ 52, and Kolar et al. (US 2020/0205613 A1), see fig. 2A-2B.
In re claim 2, which depends on claim 1: Wilcock discloses the food processor assembly has a preparation pot 10 comprising a preparation pot interior, which is limited to the outside by means of with a preparation pot bottom and a preparation pot jacket 20 (fig. 4, 6).
Wilcock is silent regarding in the operating state setup, a preparation pot opening located opposite the preparation pot bottom is covered by a preparation pot lid, wherein the preparation pot lid has a preparation pot filling opening with a smaller diameter than the preparation pot opening, and wherein the rotation unit is arranged in the vicinity of the preparation pot bottom.
However, Timo teaches a preparation pot 6 having a preparation pot opening located opposite a preparation pot bottom, and the preparation pot opening is covered by a preparation pot lid 3 having an opening with a smaller diameter than the preparation pot opening, and a rotation unit (having blades 28) is arranged in a vicinity of the preparation pot bottom (fig. 6-7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Wilcock with a lid for covering the opening of the preparation pot, as taught by Timo, thereby at least reducing the amount of material that splashes or splatters up underneath the food chopping assembly during simultaneous food processing in both the food chopping assembly and the food processor assembly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, 17-20 and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 7-8 and 19-20 are only indicated as allowable subject matter due to their dependence on claims 6 and 18, respectively.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In re claim 6, the cited prior art fails to teach “a fastening collar … which extends cylindrically away from the underside of the collecting pot bottom, starting on the underside of the collecting pot bottom”, at least when combined with the other limitations of claim 6 and the limitations of claim 1.
In re claim 17, the cited prior art fails to teach “the web(s) prevents an unwanted attaching of the cutting disk support sleeve, which is connected to the cutting disk, to the second adapter shaft end”, at least when combined with the other limitations of claim 17 and the limitations of claim 1.
In re claim 18, the cited prior art fails to teach “the support sleeve has a circumferential bearing edge, which is received in a bearing slot formed in the collecting pot lid so as to be secured against axial displacement with respect to the support shaft longitudinal axis and is rotatably mounted about the support shaft longitudinal axis”, at least when combined with the other limitations of claim 18 and the limitations of claim 1.
Further, it would not be obvious to modify either of Timo and Wilcock in the manner of any of claims 6, 17 and 18, at least not without the benefit of the applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jared O. Brown whose telephone number is 303-297-4445. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday: 8:00 - 5:00 (Mountain Time).
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 complete and submit the Automated Interview Request (AIR) form located at the following website: http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher (“Chris”) L. Templeton can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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. For more information about Patent Center, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center; and for information about filing in DOCX format, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx. 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 THE USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JARED O BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725