DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-4, 9-10, 12-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horner et al. (US 6,484,904).
Regarding claim 1, Horner et al. disclose a container system (see Fig. 9), comprising:
a container body (12, 14) having a dispensing end (Figs. 2-3); the dispensing end having an open nub (22);
a nozzle (394) having a dispensing end (at 396 in Fig. 9) and a securement end (opposite of 396 in Fig. 9); the securement end of the nozzle being shaped to removably engage the open nub and place an interior of the container body in open communication with an interior of the nozzle (Col. 2, lines 59-62);
a container plug (26) having a first end portion and an opposite second end portion (bottom and top, respectively, of 26/126 in Figs. 6-7); the first end portion being shaped to engage an interior wall of the open nub in a manner that closes the open nub and seals the interior of the container body (via 46, 48; Fig. 6); the second end portion of the container plug being shaped to approximate a shape of an interior volume of the nozzle so that the second end portion of the container plug may nest within the interior of the nozzle (the second end portion is round and sized such that it fits inside a volume of the round securement end of the nozzle; see annotated Figs. 6 and 9 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
261
340
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
292
348
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figs. 6 and 9 of Horner et al., cropped and annotated by Examiner
Regarding claims 2-4, Horner et al. further disclose that the first end portion of the container plug is disposed within the open nub (Fig. 6); the second end portion of the container plug is disposed within the interior of the nozzle, such that the container plug is encapsulated by the interior of the nozzle and an interior of the open nub; and mating threads on the securement end of the nozzle are removably coupled with mating threads on the open nub (see annotated Fig. 9 above; securement end of nozzle 394 is attached to open nub 22/322 over container plug 26/326 via threads).
Regarding claims 9-10, Horner et al. further disclose that the first end portion of the container plug is shaped to be press-fit with the open nub (Col. 3, lines 28-50) and has a frustoconical shape (taper 60) and has a length that is shorter than a height of the open nub (Fig. 6).
Regarding claims 12-13, Horner et al. disclose a container plug (26) for use with a container having a container body (see 12, 14) with a dispensing end (see Figs. 2-3), an open nub (see 22), and a removable nozzle (see 394; Fig. 9), the container plug comprising: a container plug body having a first end portion and an opposite second end portion (bottom and top, respectively, of 26/126 in Figs. 6-7); the first end portion being shaped to engage an interior wall of the open nub in a manner that closes the open nub and seals an interior of the container body (via 46, 48; Fig. 6); the second end portion of the container plug being conically shaped (see generally conical shape above 46 and 48 in Figs. 6-7) to approximate a conical shape of an interior volume of the nozzle so that the second end portion of the container plug may nest within the interior volume of the nozzle (Horner et al. discloses a nozzle fitting over the plug, as described above regarding claim 1; the conical shape of the plug is capable of cooperating in this manner with a nozzle having a conically shaped interior volume; Examiner notes that the similar language of claim 13, “shaped to approximate an interior of the nozzle”, is not interpreted to further limit the structure of the plug and thus would be satisfied in the same manner described), whereby the container plug body is encapsulated by an interior of the nozzle and an interior of the container body nub when the nozzle is coupled with the open nub (see annotated Fig. 9 above).
Regarding claim 16, Horner et al. disclose the container plug of claim 12 wherein: the first end portion of the container plug body is shaped to be press-fit with the open nub (Col. 3, lines 28-50).
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.
Claims 5-8, 11, 14-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horner et al. in view of Iverson (US 6,375,051).
Regarding claim 5, Horner et al. disclose the container system of claim 1, but are silent regarding a seal disposed within the interior of the container body, against a forward wall of the container body. Instead, prior to the first use, the container body is open to a passage (54, 56) in the open nub (Fig. 4) that is sealed by a frangible bridge (58) connecting the plug (Fig. 5).
Iverson teaches a caulk storage and dispensing system (see the Abstract) having a container body (104) with an open nub (122) and a nozzle (120) connected to the open nub (Fig. 1), and a seal (124) disposed within the interior of the container body, against a forward wall of the container body (Col. 5, lines 59-66). Iverson teach that this configuration seals the container until an object is used to pierce the seal prior to use (Col. 2, lines 62-65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the container body of Horner et al. with a seal, as taught by Iverson, in order to seal the interior of the container body from leakage and/or contamination prior to use. Considering that the device of Horner et al. contains relatively narrow passages open to the container body and a breakable seal with the container plug, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that applying this technique to the device of Horner et al. would predictably result in improved sealing and protection.
Regarding claim 6, the device of Horner et al., modified with the seal of Iverson as described above, discloses all the features of claim 5, but does not disclose that the second end portion of the container plug is shaped to be disposed within the open nub a sufficient distance that a point of the second end portion of the container plug pierces the seal.
However, Iverson teaches a container plug (102) with an end portion shaped to be disposed within the open nub a sufficient distance that the point of the end portion of the container plug pierces the seal (Fig. 1). Iverson teaches that these features enable initial use of a caulk dispensing container by piercing a seal, as well as subsequent uses by sealing a nozzle (120; Col. 6, lines 28-34). Iverson further teaches that an opposite end of the container plug may incorporate features that enable additional functions (Col. 4, lines 26-35).
Having modified the device of Horner et al. with the seal of Iverson, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the container plug of Horner et al. with a second end portion shaped to be disposed within the open nub a sufficient distance that the point of the second end portion of the container plug pierces the seal. Considering that the container plug of Iverson also provides different functions on each of two ends, one having ordinary skill would recognize that incorporating this feature into the design of the container plug disclosed by Horner et al. would predictably result in an improved system having a convenient means for enabling the initial use of the container.
Regarding claims 7-8, Horner et al.-Iverson in combination disclose the container system of claim 6 wherein: the first end portion of the container plug is shaped to have a length that is shorter than a height of the open nub so that, when the first end portion is disposed within the open nub, the first end portion of the container plug will not extend a sufficient distance to pierce the seal (apparent from Fig. 6 of Horner et al.); and the first end portion of the container plug has a frustoconical shape (taper 60).
Regarding claim 11, Horner et al. disclose the container system of claim 1 wherein: the dispensing end of the nozzle is open (Col. 5, lines 28-34), but do not disclose that a second end of the container plug is shaped to be disposed within an opening of the nozzle and seal the interior of the nozzle when the nozzle is coupled with the open nub of the container body.
Iverson teaches a container plug (102; Fig. 1) with an end portion shaped to be disposed within an opening of a nozzle (120) and seal the interior of the nozzle when the nozzle is coupled with the open nub of the container body (Fig. 1; Col. 6, lines 32-45). Iverson teach these features as part of a caulk storage and dispensing system (see the Abstract) that enables initial use of a caulk dispensing container by piercing a seal, as well as subsequent uses by sealing a nozzle (120; Col. 6, lines 28-34). Iverson further teaches that an opposite end of the container plug may incorporate features that enable additional functions (Col. 4, lines 26-35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the container plug of Horner et al. with a second end shaped to be disposed within the opening of the nozzle and seal the interior of the nozzle in order to enable subsequent uses of the container without removing the nozzle. Considering that the container plug of Iverson also provides different functions on each of two ends, one having ordinary skill would recognize that incorporating this feature into the design of the container plug disclosed by Horner et al. would predictably result in an improved system having a convenient means for sealing the container (e.g., for short-term storage purposes).
Regarding claim 14, Horner et al. disclose the container plug of claim 12, but do not disclose that the second end portion of the container plug body is shaped to pass through the open nub of the container body and pierce a foil seal disposed in the container body.
Iverson teaches a foil seal (124; Col. 5, lines 66-67) disposed within the interior of a container body, as described above regarding claim 5. Iverson further teaches a container plug (102; Fig. 1) with an end portion shaped to pass through an open nub (122) of a container body (104) and pierce the foil seal disposed in the container body (Fig. 1; Col. 6, lines 32-45). Iverson teaches these features as part of a caulk storage and dispensing system (see the Abstract) that enables initial use of a caulk dispensing container by piercing a seal, as well as subsequent uses by sealing a nozzle (120; Col. 6, lines 28-34). Iverson further teaches that an opposite end of the container plug may incorporate features that enable additional functions (Col. 4, lines 26-35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the container plug of Horner et al. with a second end portion shaped to pass through an open nub of a container body and pierce a foil seal disposed in the container body, as taught by Iverson. Considering that the container plug of Iverson also provides different functions on each of two ends, one having ordinary skill would recognize that incorporating this feature into the design of the container plug disclosed by Horner et al. would predictably result in an improved system having a convenient means for enabling the initial use of a container.
Regarding claim 15, Horner et al. disclose the container plug of claim 12, but do not disclose that the second end portion of the container plug body is shaped to pass through an opening in a dispensing end of the nozzle and seal an interior of the nozzle when the nozzle is coupled with the open nub of the container body.
Iverson teaches a container plug (102; Fig. 1) with an end portion shaped to pass through an opening in a dispensing end of a nozzle (120) so that a long axis of the container plug body and a long axis of the nozzle are disposed at an angle with respect to one another (though Iverson depicts the plug aligned with the nozzle, the shape of the end portion would allow a relative angle between the two) and seal an interior of the nozzle when the nozzle is coupled with an open nub (122) of a container body (104; Fig. 1; Col. 6, lines 32-45). Iverson teach these features as part of a caulk storage and dispensing system (see the Abstract) that enables initial use of a caulk dispensing container by piercing a seal, as well as subsequent uses by sealing a nozzle (120; Col. 6, lines 28-34). Iverson further teaches that an opposite end of the container plug may incorporate features that enable additional functions (Col. 4, lines 26-35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the container plug of Horner et al. with a second end portion shaped in accordance with the claim, as taught by Iverson, in order to enable subsequent uses of the container without removing the nozzle. Considering that the container plug of Iverson also provides different functions on each of two ends, one having ordinary skill would recognize that incorporating this feature into the design of the container plug disclosed by Horner et al. would predictably result in an improved system having a convenient means for sealing the container (e.g., for short-term storage purposes).
Regarding claim 17, Horner et al. disclose the container plug of claim 16 wherein: the first end portion of the container plug body has a frustoconical shape (taper 60), and is shaped to have a length that is shorter than a height of the open nub (Fig. 6), but are silent regarding a seal disposed in the container body.
Iverson teaches a seal disposed within the interior of the container body, as described above regarding claim 5. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to configure the first end portion of Horner et al. such that it would not extend a sufficient distance to pierce a seal disposed in the container body, as taught by Iverson, when the first end portion is disposed within an open nub of such a container.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horner et al. in view of Parks et al. (US 2005/0147761).
Regarding claim 18, Horner et al. disclose a container system (see Fig. 9), comprising:
a container body (12, 14) having a dispensing end (see Figs. 2-3); the dispensing end having an open nub (22);
a nozzle (394) having a dispensing end (at 396 in Fig. 9) and a securement end (opposite of 396 in Fig. 9); the securement end of the nozzle being removably coupled with the open nub (Col. 2, lines 59-62);
a container plug (26) having a first end portion and an opposite second end portion (bottom and top, respectively, of 26/126 in Figs. 6-7); the first end portion being removably coupled with the open nub of the container body (via 46, 48; Fig. 6); the second end portion of the container plug being shaped to approximate a shape of an interior volume of the nozzle so that the second end portion of the container plug may nest within the interior of the nozzle (as described above regarding claim 1), such that the container plug is encapsulated by the interior volume of the nozzle and an interior volume of the open nub (see annotated Fig. 9 above). Horner et al. is silent regarding the details of the nozzle and thus does not explicitly disclose that the interior volume of the nozzle has a conical shape.
Parks et al. teach a similar container system (see Figs. 8-12) having a nozzle (9) with a conical interior volume corresponding to the securement end of the nozzle disclosed by Horner et al. (see 42 in Fig. 10 of Parks et al.). Parks et al. teach that this static mixing nozzle is interchangeable with a similarly-shaped conical retaining nut (33) that cooperates with a container plug (32; see Paragraphs 0044-0047).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the nozzle of Horner et al. with a conical interior volume, as taught by Parks et al. Though Parks et al. do not explicitly teach that the nozzle can be attached over the plug, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the nozzle taught by Parks et al. would be suitable for use with the device disclosed by Horner et al., since Parks et al. teach (specifically with respect to nut 33) that this shape may accommodate such a plug. One having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of making this simple substitution with predictable results (namely, that the conical portion of the plug would approximate the conical portion of the nozzle).
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horner et al. in view of Parks et al., as applied to claims 12 and 18 above, and further in view of Iverson (US 6,375,051).
Regarding claim 19, Horner et al.-Parks et al. in combination disclose the container system of claim 18, but do not disclose a seal disposed within an interior of the container body, against a forward wall of the container body; or that the second end portion of the container plug is shaped so as to come to a point that may be selectively passed through the open nub and pierce the seal.
Iverson teaches a seal disposed within the interior of the container body, against a forward wall of the container body, as described above regarding claim 5. Iverson further teaches a container plug (102) having an end portion shaped so as to come to a point that may be selectively passed through the open nub and pierce the seal (Fig. 1; Col. 6, lines 32-45). Iverson teaches these features as part of a caulk storage and dispensing system (see the Abstract) that enables initial use of a caulk dispensing container by piercing a seal, as well as subsequent uses by sealing a nozzle (120; Col. 6, lines 28-34). Iverson further teaches that an opposite end of the container plug may incorporate features that enable additional functions (Col. 4, lines 26-35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the container body of Horner et al. with a seal for the reasons described above regarding claim 5. Having done so, it would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the container plug of Horner et al. with a second end portion shaped so as to come to a point that may be selectively passed through the open nub and pierce the seal, as taught by Iverson. Considering that the container plug of Iverson also provides different functions on each of two ends, one having ordinary skill would recognize that incorporating this feature into the design of the container plug disclosed by Horner et al. would predictably result in an improved system having a convenient means for enabling the initial use of the container.
Regarding claim 20, Horner et al.-Parks et al. in combination disclose the container system of claim 18, further comprising a dispensing opening formed in the dispensing end of the nozzle (Col. 5, lines 28-34), but do not disclose that the second end portion of the container plug is shaped so as to be selectively passed through, and removably engage, the dispensing opening and seal an interior of the nozzle.
Iverson teaches a container plug (102; Fig. 1) with an end portion shaped so as to be selectively passed through, and removably engage, a dispensing opening of a nozzle (120) so that a long axis of the container plug and a long axis of the nozzle are disposed at an angle with respect to one another (though Iverson depicts the plug aligned with the nozzle, the shape of the end portion would allow a relative angle between the two) and seal an interior of the nozzle (Fig. 1; Col. 6, lines 32-45). Iverson teach these features as part of a caulk storage and dispensing system (see the Abstract) that enables initial use of a caulk dispensing container by piercing a seal, as well as subsequent uses by sealing a nozzle (120; Col. 6, lines 28-34). Iverson further teaches that an opposite end of the container plug may incorporate features that enable additional functions (Col. 4, lines 26-35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the container plug of Horner et al. with a second end portion shaped in accordance with the claim, as taught by Iverson, in order to enable subsequent uses of the container without removing the nozzle. Considering that the container plug of Iverson also provides different functions on each of two ends, one having ordinary skill would recognize that incorporating this feature into the design of the container plug disclosed by Horner et al. would predictably result in an improved system having a convenient means for sealing the container (e.g., for short-term storage purposes).
Regarding claim 21, Horner et al.-Parks et al. in combination disclose the container system of claim 18 wherein: the first end portion of the container plug is shaped to be press-fit with the open nub (Col. 3, lines 28-50); and the first end portion of the container plug is shaped to have a length that is shorter than a height of the open nub (Fig. 6), but are silent regarding a seal disposed in the container body.
Iverson teaches a seal disposed within the interior of the container body, as described above regarding claim 5. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the container body of Horner et al. with a seal, as taught by Iverson, for the same reasons described above regarding claim 5. When making such a modification to Horner et al., it is apparent that the first end portion of the container plug body would not extend a sufficient distance to pierce the seal disposed in the container body when the first end portion is disposed within the open nub.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to claims 1, 12, 15, and 20.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that “Horner does not teach or otherwise disclose a second end portion of a container plug that is “shaped to approximate a shape of an interior volume of the nozzle” so that the second end portion of the container plug may nest within the interior of the nozzle” because “[n]either of the portions 395 or 396 are shaped similarly to, or nest with, any portion of the cap 126” (Remarks, Page 3).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., according to Examiner’s best understanding, Applicant is asserting that the claim requires the plug to be shaped similarly to the entire interior volume of the nozzle) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, Examiner asserts that the plug disclosed by Horner is designed to fit within the boundaries of the open nub (see dashed lines in annotated Fig. 6 in the rejection above) such that the nozzle may be placed over it after the plug is reinserted for storage (Col. 2, lines 11-15; see annotated Fig. 9 exploded view in the rejection above). Thus, although Horner does not describe or illustrate the interior of the nozzle, the second end portion of the plug must at least approximate an interior volume of the nozzle in a manner sufficient to enable this arrangement (i.e., to “nest within the interior of the nozzle”).
Regarding claim 12, Applicant appears to acknowledge that the plug disclosed by Horner et al. is “conically shaped” (“a second end portion of the cap 126 has a generally frustoconical shaped portion”), but argues that the amended claim language “requires that the container plug is conically shaped to approximate a conical shape of an interior volume of the nozzle so that the second end portion of the container plug may nest within the interior volume of the nozzle” and that the resulting “cooperating conical configuration is clearly not taught or otherwise disclosed by Horner” (Remarks, Page 3). Examiner notes that claim 12 is drawn to a container plug for use with a container having a nozzle, and thus the nozzle itself is not within the scope of the invention. Therefore, features of the nozzle (such as a conically shaped interior volume) are treated as a description of the intended use of the device.
In response to applicant's argument that Horner does not disclose the cooperating conical configuration, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the conical shape of the plug disclosed by Horner et al. would be capable of cooperating with a conically shaped interior volume of a nozzle, even if Horner et al. do not explicitly describe a nozzle with such a shape.
Regarding claims 15 and 20, Applicant argues that “[t]he combined teachings of Horner and Iverson teach that the first end portion of the container plug is disposed coaxially with the nozzle” (Remarks, Page 5). Examiner notes that the amended claim language further defines the shape of the second end portion of the container plug based on its ability to be disposed at an angle relative to the nozzle. According to Examiner’s best understanding, Applicant is comparing the arrangement depicted in Fig. 5 of the instant application to the arrangement depicted in Iverson (e.g., in Fig. 1).
In response to applicant's argument that the combined invention of Horner et al.-Iverson does not meet the limitation “so that a long axis of the container plug and a long axis of the nozzle are disposed at an angle with respect to one another”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, it is well known in the art that a nozzle tip may be cut at an angle, as depicted in Figs. 1 and 3 of Iverson. Though Iverson illustrates a coaxial arrangement, this alignment is not required by the invention. Additionally, the tapering shape illustrated by Iverson would facilitate a slightly angled relationship, which Examiner asserts would naturally occur during use when the nozzle tip is cut at an angle.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 18 have been 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. Applicant makes the same argument outlined above regarding claim 12 but, since claim 18 is drawn to a container system with a positively recited nozzle, the same limitation is interpreted as Applicant suggests (to require the conically shaped interior volume), which is not explicitly disclosed by Horner et al. However, upon further search and consideration necessitated by the amendments, the previously-cited Parks reference was found to disclose this feature in a similarly-configured device. Thus, claim 18 is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Horner et al. in view of Parks et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form for additional examples of nozzles and/or container plugs relevant to the independent claims of the instant application.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5558. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 CST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/MICHAEL C PATTERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 June 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights