DETAILED ACTION
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08 has been entered.
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 1 – 17 and 21 – 23 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.
The term “minor force” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minor force” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 1 – 17 and 21 – 23 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1 – 4, 6 – 17, and 21 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayer US 2019/0367261 in view of Roberts et al. US 2017/0055761 in view of Cai US 2003/0096038 in view of Kuo et al. US 2022/0033173 as further evidenced by Krüger US 2011/0142996 in view of Bardet EP 4 154 964 in view of Trombetta et al. US 2014/0161936 in view of Husband US 2014/0178538 in view of Oh US 2020/0121115.
Regarding claim 1, Bayer discloses a method capable of manufacturing beverage pods, which method comprises providing a beverage pod (125/205) having a cavity and an interior surface within the cavity, placing a filtre disc (225) into the cavity of the beverage pod (fig. 2), adhering a formed filtre material within the cavity of the beverage pod (paragraph [0070]), wherein adhering the formed filtre material within the cavity of the beverage pod comprises: receiving a pre-formed filtre material (225); placing the pre-formed filtre material within the cavity of the beverage pod; and sealing (fusion bondable) the pre-formed filtre material to the interior surface (paragraph [0070]), filling the formed filtre material adhered to the interior of the cavity with beverage material (dose the beverage material) (paragraph [0103]).
Claim 1 differs from Bayer in having an airtight lid, a headspace atmosphere, and modifying the headspace atmosphere within the cavity and further discharging said pod into a secondary package.
Roberts discloses a beverage pod (receptacle 110) (paragraph [0087]) which pod has a headspace atmosphere modified (advantageously filled using a MAP gas) within the cavity and said cavity is then sealed with an airtight lid (paragraph [0105]). Roberts is providing the headspace of a beverage pod with a modified atmosphere in order to protect the beverage material filled therein from the deleterious effects of air and/or oxygen, i.e. a reactive gas. To therefore modify Bayer and provide the beverage pod with a modified atmosphere to protect the beverage material contained therein from deterioration as taught by Roberts would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan. Roberts further discloses the beverage pod would be packaged into a secondary package (cardboard box) which would obviously have required discharging the beverage pod into a secondary package operation (paragraph [0108]).
Claim 1 differs from Bayer in view of Roberts in removing a filtre disk from a bulk supply using vacuum picking.
Cai discloses a beverage pod (cartridge 10), which pod has a cavity and interior surface within the cavity (fig. 11c). A formed filtre material (102) would be placed into the cavity of the beverage pod and adhered within the cavity of the beverage pod which is to say that the cavity of the beverage pod necessarily received a pre-formed filtre material which was placed within the cavity of the beverage pod and sealed to the interior surface (adopt the shape of the chamber) (paragraph [0044]). The formed filtre material was filled with beverage material (roast and ground coffee) (paragraph [0046]), the cavity was sealed to prevent the transport of gaseous compounds such as oxygen through the cartridge (barrier film 28) (paragraph [0028]). Further Cai discloses that the beverage pod is provided with a filtre within an interior surface of the cavity by using vacuum picking which would necessarily require removing a formed filtre (pre-cut) (formed bottom filtre) from a bulk supply using vacuum picking and adhering said formed filtre material within the cavity of the beverage pod (paragraph [0044]). Cai is removing a filtre disk from a bulk supply using vacuum picking in order to prevent any deformation of the formed bottom filtre during placement in the process of manufacturing a beverage pod which is believed to be applicant’s reason for doing so as well. To therefore modify Bayer in view of Roberts and use vacuum picking to remove a filtre disk from a bulk supply and place said filtre disk into a cavity of a beverage pod as taught by Cai would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Claim 1 differs from Bayer in view of Roberts in view of Cai in an exterior surface of the cavity comprises a plurality of oval indents arranged in a staggered pattern thereon configured to allow interconnection and locking between beverage pod after their contents have been emptied and stacking of the emptied beverage pods.
Regarding claim 1, Kuo discloses a beverage pod (carrier 1) having a cavity (3) comprised of a beverage pod shell (paragraph [0095] and fig. 1a), wherein the beverage pod shell comprises one or more indents (244/342) capable of interlocking with one or more beverage pods. Further the beverage pod shell comprises one or more indents (244, 342, 246) that would be capable of interlocking with one or more beverage pods (paragraph [0091] and fig. 1a and 1b). Kuo is teaching indents that would be capable of interlocking with one or more beverage pods for the art recognized function of nesting, that is interlocking one or more of said beverage pod shells in order to ensure that respective shells interconnected shells can be on-by-one accurately drawn out by automatically component-picking equipment of a component assembling production line thereby raising fabricating efficiency as well as allowing the beverage pods to interconnect which is applicant’s reason for doing so as well (paragraph [0008]). To therefore modify Bayer in view of Roberts in view of Cai and provide an exterior surface of the cavity with indents with one or more indents as taught by Kuo to raise fabricating efficiency and allow the beverage pods to be capable of interconnection would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Regarding the indents having an oval shape, once it was known to provide a plurality of indents that would be capable of allowing interconnection and locking between the beverage pods it is not seen that patentability would be predicated on the specific shape of the indents as the particular shape would have been an obvious matter of design and/or choice to the ordinarily skilled artisan absent strong and compelling evidence to the contrary (MPEP § 2144.04 IV.B).
With respect to the indents be arranged in a staggered pattern, since the particular pattern that said indents would be arranged in would not modify the ability of the beverage pods to be capable of interconnecting and locking the pattern one would choose to arrange the indents in would have been an obvious matter of design and/or choice as a rearrangement of parts (MPEP § 2144.04 VI.B.).
Krüger provides further evidence that a beverage pod (capsule 1) which comprises a cavity (3) and has an interior surface with said cavity would have a plurality of indents (channels 15) arranged on an exterior surface, wherein the indents would be arranged in a staggered pattern (channels 15 . . . partly interrupted) and capable of interlocking with one or more beverage pods (paragraph [0024]).
Claim 1 differs from Bayer in view of Roberts in view of Cai in view of Kuo as further evidenced by Krüger in the formed filtre material comprises abaca.
Bardet discloses a formed filtre material that would be adhered within the cavity of a beverage pod, which formed filtre material comprises abaca fibres. Bardet teaches abaca fibres are relatively long and therefore the use of abaca fibres in the filtre material would be desired as they would provide additional mechanical strength to the filtre when used in conjunction with other cellulose nonwoven fibres and that this is especially of importance during the paper manufacturing process (paragraph [0028]). To therefore modify Bayer in view of Roberts in view of Cai in view of Kuo as further evidenced by Krüger and form the filtre material using abaca fibres as taught by Bardet to provide additional mechanical strength to the filtre would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design.
Claim 1 differs from Bayer in view of Roberts in view of Cai in view of Kuo as further evidenced by Krüger in view of Bardet in the formed filtre material is removable from the cavity by a user applying minor force to separate the formed filtre material from the interior surface, thereby enabling recycling of the beverage pod.
Trombetta discloses a beverage pod (container 1) having a cavity and an interior surface within the cavity (paragraph [0082] – [0083] and fig. 7). A formed filtre material (14) is adhered to the interior surface (sidewall 20) such that the formed filtre material is removable from the cavity by a user applying minor force (peelable bond) to separate the formed filtre material from the interior surface thereby enabling recycling of the beverage pod (paragraph [0089] and fig. 7 and 8). Trombetta is adhering the formed filter material to an interior surface such that the formed filter material is removable from the cavity by a user applying minor force to separate the formed filter material from the interior surface for the art recognized purpose of allowing the user to recycle the beverage pod (paragraph [0105]) which is applicant’s reason for doing so as well. To therefore modify Bayer in view of Roberts in view of Cai in view of Kuo as further evidenced by Krüger in view of Bardet and adhere a formed filter material to the interior surface of a beverage pod as taught by Trombetta would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Claim 1 differs from Bayer in view of Roberts in view of Cai in view of Kuo as further evidenced by Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Trombetta in the cavity comprising twist grooves that configure a helix shape on one or more surfaces of the beverage pod.
Husband discloses a beverage pod (cartridge 10) having a cavity (cup 12/82) and an interior surface within the cavity, a filtre (28) is placed into the cavity of the beverage pod (fig. 1), and the cavity is sealed with an airtight lid (paragraph [0016]). Husband further discloses the cavity would comprise twist grooves that configure a helix (helical portion 42) on one or more surfaces of the beverage pod which would allow the cavity having a surface to convert a linear movement to a rotational force, that is to create a cyclonic pressure system within an interior surface of the cavity to promote even fluid distribution through a beverage material (paragraph [0023]).
Husband is providing one or more surfaces of the beverage pods with twist grooves that configure a helix for the art recognized function of convert a linear movement to a rotational force, that is to create a cyclonic pressure system within an interior surface of the cavity to promote even fluid distribution through a beverage material which is one of applicant’s reason for doing so as well. To therefore modify Bayer in view of Roberts in view of Cai to provide an exterior surface of the cavity with twist grooves that configure a helix on one or more surfaces of the beverage pod as taught by Husband would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design for the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Claim 1 differs from Bayer in view of Roberts in view of Cai in view of Kuo as further evidenced by Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Trombetta in view of Husband in the filtre disk is placed at a height above a floor of the cavity of the beverage pod, and wherein the height of the filtre disk is placed is determinized as a function of a weight of a beverage material.
Oh discloses a beverage pod (300A) which beverage pod comprises a filtre (306A). The bottom of said filtre (322A) is seen to comprise a filtre disk (holes 336A may be formed on the base) and the longitudinal axis relative to said disk may be longer to pack more ingredients to brew a low pressure beverage compared to the ingredient to brew a high pressure beverage such as espresso. This is to say that the height the filtre disk would be placed (adjusted) above the floor of said pod would be determined as a function of a weight (based on the amount of ingredient) of a beverage material (ingredient) (paragraph [0115] and fig. 4A and 4B). Oh is disclosing that the height at which the filtre placed above the floor of said pod would be determined as a function of a weight of a beverage ingredient for the art recognized function of varying the position of the filtre disk based on the style of coffee one would choose to brew, the amount of coffee required for each style, and the resistance to flow/pressure required (paragraph [0113]) all of which are believed to be applicant’s reasons for doing so as well. To therefore modify Bayer in view of Roberts in view of Cai in view of Kuo as further evidenced by Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Trombetta in view of Husband and place the filtre disk at a height above a floor of the cavity determined as a function of a weight of a beverage material as taught by Oh would have been an obvious matter of design and/or choice to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Regarding claim 2, Bayer in view of Roberts in view of Cai in view of Kuo as further evidenced by Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Trombetta in view of Husband in view of Oh discloses the beverage pod is a single-serving beverage pod (single-use) (‘261, paragraph [0047]) (single-serving sized format) (‘761, paragraph [0112]).
Regarding claim 3, Bayer in view of Roberts in view of Cai in view of Kuo as further evidenced by Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Trombetta in view of Husband in view of Oh disclose the beverage pod would be a multi-serving beverage pod (batch-serving sized for producing multiple servings) (‘761 paragraph [0112]).
Regarding claim 4, Bayer in view of Roberts in view of Cai in view of Kuo as further evidenced by Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Trombetta in view of Husband in view of Oh disclose the beverage pod shell would be comprised of aluminum material (‘261, paragraph [0065]) (‘761, paragraph [0128]).
Regarding claim 6, Bayer in view of Roberts in view of Cai in view of Kuo as further evidenced by Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Trombetta in view of Husband in view of Oh disclose the method would comprise de-nesting the beverage pod (120) from a received plurality of aluminium beverage pods (115) (‘261, paragraph [0051], [0064], and fig. 1A).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Bayer in view of Roberts in view of Cai in view of Kuo as further evidenced by Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Trombetta in view of Husband in view of Oh disclose there would be a filtre material which filtre material in the form of a design comprising pleats and creases (fluted paper configuration) which would obviously have to have been formed and press formed in order to have a fluted shape (‘261, paragraph [0066]). Regarding the forming of the filtre material, Bardet discloses the forming filtre material would comprise pulping the abaca to create abaca fibres of a predetermined size, blending the abaca fibres with non-woven cellulose fibres (softwood, hardwood) and non-woven polymeric fibres (Lyocell, Rayon) to form the filtre material (‘964, paragraph [0028] – [0037]). Bardet is forming the filtre from non-woven abaca, other non-woven cellulose fibres, and non-woven polymeric fibres to produce a filtre material that would be fully home compostable (‘964, paragraph [0024]) making it obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have formed the filtre material therefrom.
Regarding claim 9, Bayer in view of Roberts in view of Cai in view of Kuo as further evidenced by Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Trombetta in view of Husband in view of Oh disclose the cavity of the beverage pod would have a polymeric coating (polypropylene) to enhance food safety, eliminate chemical reactions between the aluminium and the beverage material contained therein and/or to provide a welding surface for the heat sealed lid and it therefore would have been obvious to have provided a polymeric coating to the cavity of the beverage pod of Bayer in view of Roberts in view of Cai in view of Kuo as further evidenced by Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Trombetta in view of Husband as taught by Roberts (‘761, paragraph [0243]).
Regarding claim 10, Bayer in view of Roberts in view of Cai in view of Kuo as further evidenced by Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Trombetta in view of Husband in view of Oh disclose the beverage pod would be filled using an auger feeder (‘261, paragraph [0121]).
Regarding claim 11, Bayer in view of Roberts in view of Cai in view of Kuo as further evidenced by Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Trombetta in view of Husband in view of Oh disclose the beverage pod would be filled using a volumetric filler (volumetric dosing block) (‘261, paragraph [0108]).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Bayer in view of Roberts in view of Cai in view of Kuo as further evidenced by Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Trombetta in view of Husband in view of Oh disclose the headspace of the cavity of the beverage pod would be filled with nitrogen, which is an inert gas (‘761, paragraph [0105]).
Regarding claim 14, Bayer in view of Roberts in view of Cai in view of Kuo as further evidenced by Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Trombetta in view of Husband in view of Oh disclose the airtight lid would be a peelable lid (‘936, fig. 7 and 8).
Regarding claim 15, Bayer in view of Roberts in view of Cai in view of Kuo as further evidenced by Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Trombetta in view of Husband in view of Oh disclose the airtight lid would be of an aluminium foil material (‘261, paragraph [0065) (‘761, paragraph [0242]) having a polymeric coating (polypropylene) to provide a welding surface for heat sealing the lid to said pod and it therefore would have been obvious an obvious matter of choice and/or design to have provided a polymeric coating to said foil material of the lid of the beverage pod of Bayer in view of Roberts in view of Cai in view of Kuo as further evidenced by Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Trombetta in view of Husband to seal the lid to the pod as taught by Roberts (‘761, paragraph [0243]).
Regarding claim 16, Bayer in view of Roberts in view of Cai in view of Kuo as further evidenced by Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Trombetta in view of Husband in view of Oh discloses the airtight lid would be sealed using a heat sealer (‘761, paragraph [0091]).
Regarding claim 17, Bayer in view of Roberts in view of Cai in view of Kuo as further evidenced by Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Trombetta in view of Husband in view of Oh disclose the method is performed by an automated fill and seal machine (filling and lidding, sensors can be configured in the device) (‘261, paragraph [0101], [0114], [0145], and fig. 19).
Regarding claim 21, Bayer in view of Roberts in view of Cai in view of Kuo as further evidenced by Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Trombetta in view of Husband in view of Oh in a secondary package operation discloses the preformed filtre would be removed from the surface of the cavity of the beverage pod by hand, i.e., one at the time, which is to say said filtre removal would comprise a singular action of the beverage pod.
Regarding claim 22, Bayer in view of Roberts in view of Cai in view of Kuo as further evidenced by Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Trombetta in view of Husband in view of Oh discloses the pre-formed filtre material would be heat sealed (‘936, paragraph [0059]) to the interior surface (‘936, paragraph [0089]). Once it was known to heat seal the pre-formed filtre material to the interior surface of the beverage pod it is not seen that patentability would be predicated on the particular method of heat sealing used, such as convection heat sealing, that would be used to seal the pre-formed filtre material to the interior of the beverage pod absent strong and compelling evidence to the contrary. The substitution of one known method of heat sealing for another known method of heat sealing would have been obvious (MPEP § 2143I.B.).
Regarding claim 23, Bayer in view of Roberts in view of Cai in view of Kuo as further evidenced by Krüger in view of Bardet in view of Trombetta in view of Husband in view of Oh discloses the lid would be heat sealed to the airtight cavity (‘936, paragraph [0068]). Once it was known to heat seal the lid to the airtight cavity of the beverage pod it is not seen that patentability would be predicated on the particular method of heat sealing used, such as convection heat sealing, that would be used to seal the lid to the airtight cavity of the beverage pod absent strong and compelling evidence to the contrary. The substitution of one known method of heat sealing for another known method of heat sealing would have been obvious (MPEP § 2143I.B.).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayer US 2019/0367261 in view of Roberts et al. US 2017/0055761 in view of Cai US 2003/0096038 in view of in view of Kuo et al. US 2022/0033173 as further evidenced by Krüger US 2011/0142996 in view of Bardet EP 4 154 964 in view of Trombetta et al. US 2014/0161936 in view of Husband et al. US 2014/0178538 in view of Oh US 2020/0121115 as further evidenced by Gatewood et al. US 2017/0283163, Magri et al. US 2014/0295032, Gerbaulet et al. US 2019/0225411, and Biondi et al. US 2023/0348124.
Regarding claim 5, once it was known to make the beverage pod shell from an aluminium material (‘261, paragraph [0064] – [0065]) (‘761, paragraph [0128]) it is not seen that patentability would be predicated on the particular aluminium material, such as an aluminum alloy material, that the beverage pod shell would be made from absent strong and compelling evidence to the contrary. The substitution of one known aluminium material for another known aluminium material would have been obvious (MPEP § 2143I.B.). Gatewood (paragraph [0027]), Magri (paragraph [0089]), Gerbaulet (paragraph [0020]), and Biondi (paragraph [0063]) all provide further evidence that it was well known to make beverage pod shells from an aluminium alloy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been fully and carefully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In an effort to further prosecution the following remarks are made.
Applicant urges that Bayer is directed to a filtre material that is permanently bonded to the interior surface of the cavity and that Bayer is teaching away from recyclability. These urgings are not deemed persuasive.
Bayer teaches with respect to the filtre that a user will separate the various aspects, i.e., components, for recycling (paragraph [0070]) which would clearly include the filtre.
With respect to the other references used in the rejections applicant correctly states that Cai was brought to solely to teach vacuum picking as a technique for removing a filtre disk from a bulk supply, that Kouo was brought to teach interlocking indents on the exterior surface of a beverage pod shell, that Krüger was brought to provide further evidence that it was known to provide staggered indentations of the exterior surface of a pod for interlocking, that Bardet was brought to teach the use of abaca fibres as a filtre material, that Husband was brought to teach that it was common and conventional to provide twist grooves in a helix configuration on the surface of a beverage pod to create cyclonic pressure during brewing of a beverage, and that Oh was brought to teach that the height of a filtre disk above the floor of the cavity of a beverage pod would be determined as a function of the beverage material weight.
Applicant urges that the Examiner has combined an excessive number of references to reject the claims. This urging is not found persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Applicant urges that the rejections have been based on impermissible hindsight. This urging is not deemed persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAIM A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 09:00-18:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to please telephone the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nikki Dees can be reached at (571) 270-3435. 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.
/C.S./
Chaim SmithExaminer, Art Unit 1791 15 April 2026
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792