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 Objections
Claims 1, 15, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 15, and 16 each recite the limitation “wherein said loop integrated to said closed top end,” which is a grammatical error. The examiner recommends amending claims 1, 15, and 16 to each recite “wherein said loop is integrated to said closed top end.”
Claims 1, 15, and 16 each recite the limitation “said nozzle cover frictionally and selectively mountable,” which is a grammatical error. The examiner recommends amending claims 1, 15, and 16 to each recite “said nozzle cover is frictionally and selectively mountable.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sauer (US 0543540 A).
Regarding claim 1, Sauer discloses a keg tap sanitation cover device comprising:
a nozzle cover (cap E, fig. 1);
a loop (refer to the annotated figure below);
PNG
media_image1.png
298
287
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a ring (ring i, figs. 2 and 6);
a tether (chain h); and
an anchor (refer to the annotated figure below);
PNG
media_image2.png
298
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein said nozzle cover having a closed top end and an open bottom end (refer to fig. 1);
wherein said nozzle cover having a cylindrical wall between said closed top end and said open bottom end (refer to p. 1 col. 2 ll. 77-83 describing the diameter of the cap and fig. 3);
wherein said cylindrical wall having an exterior surface forming a cavity within said cylindrical wall for accommodating a keg nozzle (refer to fig. 1);
wherein said loop integrated to said closed top end of said nozzle cover (refer to figs. 1 and 6); wherein said ring connecting said loop to one end of said tether (connected via the second portion of chain h, refer to figs. 2, 3, and 6);
wherein said tether having said anchor at another end of said tether (connected via the first portion of chain h, refer to the annotated figure above);
wherein said anchor connecting said nozzle cover to a faucet of the keg tap (connected via chain h, refer to the annotated figure below);
PNG
media_image3.png
306
340
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and further wherein said nozzle cover frictionally (wherein the spout is shaped to engage frictionally with the cap) and selectively mountable (refer to fig. 2, wherein the cap is removed) to said keg nozzle (outer end of outer section D) of the keg tap.
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Sauer further discloses wherein said loop is an eyelet having a circular aperture (refer to figs. 1-3 and 6).
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 1, 4, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geist (DE 20310437 U1) in view of Sauer (US 0543540 A).
Regarding claim 1, Geist discloses a keg tap sanitation cover device comprising:
a nozzle cover (sleeve 1);
a loop (suspension device 12);
wherein said nozzle cover having a closed top end and an open bottom end (refer to fig. 1);
wherein said nozzle cover having a cylindrical wall between said closed top end and said open bottom end (refer to fig. 4, displaying the cylindrical cross section);
wherein said cylindrical wall having an exterior surface forming a cavity within said cylindrical wall for accommodating a keg nozzle (fig. 1, where in the beer keg nozzle is tap end ZE);
wherein said loop integrated to said closed top end of said nozzle cover (refer to fig. 5);
wherein said nozzle cover frictionally and selectively mountable to said beer keg nozzle of the beer keg tap (via sealing and retaining ring 4); however, Geist remains silent to
a ring;
a tether; and
an anchor;
wherein said ring connecting said loop to one end of said tether;
wherein said tether having said anchor at another end of said tether;
wherein said anchor connecting said nozzle cover to a faucet of the keg tap;
Sauer teaches a ring (ring i, figs. 2 and 6);
a tether (chain h); and
an anchor (refer to the annotated figure below);
PNG
media_image2.png
298
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(connected via the second portion of chain h, refer to figs. 2, 3, and 6);
wherein said ring connecting said loop to one end of said tether (connected via the second portion of chain h, refer to figs. 2, 3, and 6);
wherein said tether having said anchor at another end of said tether (connected via the first portion of chain h, refer to the annotated figure above);
wherein said anchor connecting said nozzle cover to a faucet of the keg tap (connected via chain h, refer to the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
306
340
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device to include a ring, tether, and anchor. Geist contemplates tethering the nozzle cap, albeit, remains open-ended on the specifics, whereas Sauer, provides the means for tethering said nozzle cap; thus, the modified device solves the problem of covering the nozzle without losing the cap when it is removed. Such solution is known in Geist (translation: p. 4 para. 1), and thus a simple modification with the chain of Sauer produces an expected result.
In doing so, the device can advantageously allow for the nozzle cap to be kept within close proximity of the keg tap to prevent accidental misplacement or loss.
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, the already modified device teaches wherein said keg nozzle is a beer keg nozzle (Geist, translation: p. 1 para. 4, wherein the tap is used at a bar, which a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand as capable of dispensing beer);
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Geist further discloses wherein said loop is an eyelet having a circular aperture (refer to fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the limitations of claim 10, Geist further discloses an eyelet having a material selected from the group consisting of a stainless steel and a brass (sleeve 1 with suspension device 12 (analogous to the eyelet) made of stainless steel, translation: p. 3 para. 7).
Claims 2-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geist (DE 20310437 U1) and Sauer (US 0543540 A), as applied in claim 1, further in view of Johnson (US 3410303 A).
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, the already modified device remains silent wherein said nozzle cover is an elastic nozzle cover; however, Johnson teaches wherein said nozzle cover is an elastic nozzle cover (col. 2 ll. 23-25, describing molded rubber). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover to be elastic, which improves the sealing function of the device, such that it can be better retained on the end of the nozzle.
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, the already modified device remains silent wherein said nozzle cover is a flexible molded nozzle cover; however, Johnson teaches wherein said nozzle cover is a flexible molded nozzle cover (col. 2 ll. 23-25, describing molded rubber). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover to be a flexible molded nozzle cover. By making the nozzle cover molded and flexible, it allows for a well fit and secured attachment to the end of the nozzle which aids in the sealing nature of the nozzle cover.
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the limitations of claim 3, the already modified device teaches wherein said flexible molded nozzle cover is selected from a material consisting of a plastic and a rubber (Johnson: col. 2 ll. 23-25, describing molded rubber).
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geist (DE 20310437 U1) and Sauer (US 0543540 A), as applied in claim 1, further in view of Conforti et al. (US 20080217283 A1).
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, the already modified device discloses said nozzle cover; however, remains silent to said nozzle cover having a length between said closed top end and said open bottom end, further wherein said length is from 2 inches to 6 inches. Conforti teaches a nozzle cover having a length between said closed top end and said open bottom end, further wherein said length is from 2 inches to 6 inches (overall length of cover 50 is approximately 3 inches, para. 0058). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length to be 3 inches which is within the claimed range of 2-6 inches and doing so advantageously increases the efficiency of the space behind the back bar (Conforti: para. 0058).
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, the already modified device remains silent wherein said exterior surface of said nozzle cover is textured for an improved grip of said nozzle cover; however, Conforti teaches wherein said exterior surface of said nozzle cover is textured for an improved grip of said nozzle cover (indentation 62, para. 0048). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outer wall of the nozzle cover to include an indentation for texturing as doing so improves grip, provides a pleasing, and unique aesthetic and can improve strength while reducing wall thickness (Conforti: para. 0048).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geist (DE 20310437 U1) and Sauer (US 0543540 A), as applied in claim 1, further in view of Sasaki (JP 3189519 U).
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, the already modified device remains silent wherein said nozzle cover having embedded antimicrobial agents; however, Sasaki teaches a nozzle cover having embedded antimicrobial agents (outer bag 1 is an antibacterial flexible resin, translation: p. 2 para. 8). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nozzle cover to include antimicrobial agents, as doing so advantageously prevents the buildup of bacteria while preventing the smell of the liquid from the tap (Sasaki, translation: p. 2 para. 8).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geist (DE 20310437 U1), Sauer (US 0543540 A), and Johnson (US 3410303 A), as applied in claim 3, further in view of Baker (US 20150108149 A1).
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the limitations of claim 3, the already modified device teaches said flexible molded nozzle cover, however, remains silent to said cover having a material of food-grade silicone. Baker teaches a cover being made of food-grade silicone (para. 0017, discussing food-grade plastic, wherein silicone is a plastic). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device to be made of food-grade silicone, as doing so prevents harmful chemical leaching from the plastic to an area were consumable substance may contact and is common use by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geist (DE 20310437 U1) and Sauer (US 0543540 A), as applied in claim 11, further in view of McKinney et al. (US 8245870 B2).
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the limitations of claim 11, the already modified device remains silent to said tether having a material selected from the group consisting of a metal and a plastic; however, McKinney teaches a tether having a material consisting of plastic (flexible resilient plastic, col. 5 ll. 52-55). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tether to be made of a plastic material, as doing so allows for the tether to be flexible, resilient, and retain some shape-memory (McKinney: col. 5 ll. 52-55).
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geist (DE 20310437 U1) and Sauer (US 0543540 A), as applied in claim 1, further in view of Alois (US 20050199631 A1) and McKinney et al. (US 8245870 B2).
Regarding claim 13, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, the already modified device remains silent wherein said anchor is a plastic tie. Alois teaches an anchor (connector hoop 78) is a tie (and refer to the annotated figure below). However, Alois remains silent wherein the anchor is plastic.
McKinney teaches a plastic anchor (col. 5 ll. 52-55, describing a resilient plastic).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anchor to be a tie. In doing so, the anchor can adjust to fit a variety of diameter taps (as evidenced by Alois, teaching a plurality of teeth 16AB, allowing for different size loops to accommodate taps of varying diameter).
Furthermore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anchor to be plastic, as doing so allows a flexible and resilient construction (col. 5 ll. 52-55), which aids in the operation of the tie.
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S Geist (DE 20310437 U1) and Sauer (US 0543540 A), as applied in claim 1, in view of Alois (US 20050199631 A1).
Regarding claim 14, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, the already modified device remains silent wherein said tether having a selectively adjustable length; however, Alois teaches a tether having a selectively adjustable length (by pulling strap 16 through opening 16AA which engages with teeth 16AB, thus adjusting the effective length of the strap). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tether to be adjustable, as doing so allows for the cap to be within close proximity to the spout/tap (Alois: para. 0032) while also accommodating for varying minimum distances between the anchor and the nozzle.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geist (DE 20310437 U1) and Sauer (US 0543540 A) in view of Rittri (CN 114634222 A).
Regarding claim 15, Geist discloses a keg tap sanitation cover device comprising:
a nozzle cover (sleeve 1);
a loop (suspension device 12);
wherein said nozzle cover having a closed top end and an open bottom end (refer to fig. 1);
wherein said nozzle cover having a cylindrical wall between said closed top end and said open bottom end (refer to fig. 4, displaying the cylindrical cross section);
wherein said cylindrical wall having an exterior surface forming a cavity within said cylindrical wall for accommodating a keg nozzle (fig. 1, wherein the beer keg nozzle is tap end ZE);
wherein said loop integrated to said closed top end of said nozzle cover (refer to fig. 5);
wherein said nozzle cover frictionally and selectively mountable to said keg nozzle of the beer keg tap (via sealing and retaining ring 4); however, Geist remains silent to
a ring;
a tether; and
an anchor;
wherein said ring connecting said loop to one end of said tether;
wherein said tether having said anchor at another end of said tether;
wherein said anchor connecting said nozzle cover to a faucet of the keg tap.
Sauer teaches a ring (ring i, figs. 2 and 6);
a tether (chain h); and
an anchor (refer to the annotated figure below);
PNG
media_image2.png
298
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein said ring connecting said loop to one end of said tether (connected via the second portion of chain h, refer to figs. 2, 3, and 6);
wherein said tether having said anchor at another end of said tether (connected via the first portion of chain h, refer to the annotated figure above);
wherein said anchor connecting said nozzle cover to a faucet of the keg tap (connected via chain h, refer to the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
306
340
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, the already modified device remains silent to said closed top end having a UV-C light inside said nozzle cover.
Rittri teaches closed top end having a UV-C light (ultraviolet light module 130, described as capable of UV-C light, translation: p. 3 para. 13) inside said nozzle cover (refer to fig. 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device to include a ring, tether, and anchor. Geist contemplates tethering the nozzle cap, albeit, remains open-ended on the specifics, whereas Sauer, provides the means for tethering said nozzle cap; thus, the modified device solves the problem of covering the nozzle without losing the cap when it is removed. Such solution is known in Geist (translation: p. 4 para. 1), and thus a simple modification with the chain of Sauer produces an expected result. In doing so, the device can advantageously allow for the nozzle cap to be kept within close proximity of the keg tap to prevent accidental misplacement or loss.
Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interior of the cover to include a UV light for the purpose of improving the sanitation capabilities of the nozzle cap.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geist (DE 20310437 U1) and Sauer (US 0543540 A) in view of Conforti et al. (US 20080217283 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Geist discloses a beer keg tap sanitation cover device comprising:
a nozzle cover (sleeve 1);
a loop (suspension device 12);
wherein said nozzle cover having a closed top end and an open bottom end (refer to fig. 1);
wherein said nozzle cover having a cylindrical wall between said closed top end and said open bottom end (refer to fig. 4, displaying the cylindrical cross section);
wherein said cylindrical wall having an exterior surface forming a cavity within said cylindrical wall for accommodating a beer keg nozzle (fig. 1, wherein the beer keg nozzle is tap end ZE);
wherein said loop integrated to said closed top end of said nozzle cover (refer to fig. 5);
wherein said nozzle cover frictionally and selectively mountable to said beer keg nozzle of the beer keg tap (via sealing and retaining ring 4); however, remains silent to
a ring;
a tether; and
an anchor;
wherein said ring connecting said loop to one end of said tether;
wherein said tether having said anchor at another end of said tether;
wherein said anchor connecting said nozzle cover to a faucet of the beer keg tap;
wherein said nozzle cover is a flexible molded nozzle cover; and
said flexible molded nozzle cover having a length from 2 inches to 6 inches between said closed top end and said open bottom end.
Sauer teaches a ring (ring i, figs. 2 and 6);
a tether (chain h); and
an anchor (refer to the annotated figure below);
PNG
media_image2.png
298
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein said ring connecting said loop to one end of said tether (connected via the second portion of chain h, refer to figs. 2, 3, and 6);
wherein said tether having said anchor at another end of said tether (connected via the first portion of chain h, refer to the annotated figure above);
wherein said anchor connecting said nozzle cover to a faucet of the beer keg tap (connected via chain h, refer to the annotated figure below, and in the modification is connected to the beer tap faucet);
PNG
media_image3.png
306
340
media_image3.png
Greyscale
however, the already modified device remains silent to wherein said nozzle cover is a flexible molded nozzle cover; and
said flexible molded nozzle cover having a length from 2 inches to 6 inches between said closed top end and said open bottom end.
Conforti teaches nozzle cover is a flexible (para. 0058, describing strong plastic, which is known in the art to be flexible) molded (para. 0054, describing mirror image molded parts) nozzle cover (cover 50); and
said flexible molded nozzle cover having a length from 2 inches to 6 inches between said closed top end and said open bottom end (para. 0058, describing a length of 3 inches which is within the claimed range of 2-6 inches).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device to include a ring, tether, and anchor. Geist contemplates tethering the nozzle cap, albeit, remains open-ended on the specifics, whereas Sauer, provides the means for tethering said nozzle cap; thus, the modified device solves the problem of covering the nozzle without losing the cap when it is removed. Such solution is known in Geist (translation: p. 4 para. 1), and thus a simple modification with the chain of Sauer produces an expected result. In doing so, the device can advantageously allow for the nozzle cap to be kept within close proximity of the keg tap to prevent accidental misplacement or loss.
Additionally, It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nozzle cover to made of a flexible, molded material as well as being within 2-6 inches as doing so allows for higher mechanical strength and resistance to permanent deformation while also advantageously increasing the efficiency of the space behind the back bar (Conforti: para. 0058).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geist (DE 20310437 U1), Sauer (US 0543540 A), and Conforti et al. (US 20080217283 A1), as applied in claim 16, further in view of Baker (US 20150108149 A1).
Regarding claim 17, in addition to the limitations of claim 16, the already modified device teaches said flexible molded nozzle cover; however, remains silent to said flexible molded nozzle cover having a material of food-grade silicone. Baker teaches a cover being made of food-grade silicone (para. 0017, discussing food-grade plastic, wherein silicone is a plastic). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device to be made of food-grade silicone, as doing so prevents harmful chemical leaching from the plastic to an area were consumable substance may contact and is common use by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 18, in addition to the limitations of claim 17, the already modified device teaches said exterior surface of said flexible molded nozzle cover; however, remains silent wherein said exterior surface of said flexible molded nozzle cover is textured for an improved grip of said flexible molded nozzle cover. Conforti teaches wherein said exterior surface of said nozzle cover is textured for an improved grip of said nozzle cover (indentation 62, para. 0048). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outer wall of the nozzle cover to include an indentation for texturing as doing so improves grip, provides a pleasing, and unique aesthetic and can improve strength while reducing wall thickness (Conforti: para. 0048).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geist (DE 20310437 U1), Sauer (US 0543540 A), Conforti et al. (US 20080217283 A1), and Baker (US 20150108149 A1), as applied in clam 18, further in view of Sasaki (JP 3189519 U).
Regarding claim 19, in addition to the limitations of claim 18, the already modified device teaches said flexible molded nozzle cover; however, remains silent to said flexible molded nozzle cover having embedded antimicrobial agents. Sasaki teaches a nozzle cover having embedded antimicrobial agents (outer bag 1 is an antibacterial flexible resin, translation: p. 2 para. 8). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nozzle cover to include antimicrobial agents, as doing so advantageously prevents the buildup of bacteria while preventing the smell of the liquid from the tap (Sasaki, translation: p. 2 para. 8).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geist (DE 20310437 U1), Sauer (US 0543540 A), Conforti et al. (US 20080217283 A1), Baker (US 20150108149 A1), and Sasaki (JP 3189519 U), as applied in clam 19, further in view of Alois (US 20050199631 A1).
Regarding claim 20, in addition to the limitations of claim 19, the already modified device teaches said tether; however, remains silent to said tether having a selectively adjustable length. Alois teaches a tether having a selectively adjustable length (by pulling strap 16 through opening 16AA which engages with teeth 16AB, thus adjusting the effective length of the strap). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tether to be adjustable, as doing so allows for the cap to be within close proximity to the spout/tap (Alois: para. 0032).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sotile (US 20070044435 A1) for the nozzle cap and Lopez et al. (US 11548775 B2) for a tethered nozzle cap.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER STEVEN PARISI whose telephone number is (571)270-5490. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 5:00 EST.
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, David Angwin can be reached at (571) 270-3735. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER S. PARISI/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754