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 .
Election/Restrictions/ Response to Amendment
Applicant’s election of Group I (Claims 1-16) in the reply filed on 11/20/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicant’s amendment filed 6/2/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-16 remain pending.
Claims 17-20 are cancelled.
Claims 21-24 remain also pending.
Claims 25-28 are allowed.
Claims 1-16 and 21-28 are pending and examined below.
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 1-16 and 21-28 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.
Regarding Claim 1, lines 9-11 recite “each comprising a circumferential outer periphery having a hard outer peripheral non-stick surface configured to reduce friction between the bag and the drive wheels and the follower wheels each having a circumferential outer periphery having hard outer peripheral non-stick surface configured to reduce friction between the bag and the follower wheels”. These limitations render the claim indefinite for several reasons. First, in the recitation “hard outer peripheral non-stick surface”, it is unclear as to what can be readily viewed as the broadest reasonable scope of the terms “hard” and “non-stick”. The specification does not provide further details as to clarity of the scope of such terms. Further, the recitation “configured to reduce friction between the bag and the drive wheels” also renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to what condition the friction is being reduced therefrom. Similar limitations are recited with respect to the “follower wheels” which also render the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 8, line 2 recites “the O-ring” which lacks antecedent basis within the claim and therefore renders the clam indefinite.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites similar limitations to that of Claim 1 outlined above and therefore, the claim is rendered indefinite for the same reasoning.
Claims 2-7, 9, 11-16, 21-28 depend from at least one of the claims outlined above and therefore are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
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, 2, 4-8, 10, 15, 16, and 22-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irwin (US PGPUB 2011/0079123-cited in IDS) in view of Aquarius (US PGPUB 2017/0072655), and in further view of Joyce (US PGPUB 2022/0225660).
Regarding Claim 1, Irwin discloses a bag closing apparatus (18; Figure 2), comprising:
a frame (formed by reel assembly 30 and housings 66, 68) configured to carry a strip (24) of closures (26);
a closure strip guide (94; Figures 3-4) configured to guide a strip (24) of closures (26; Paras. 0080,0082);
a clip separator (92; Figures 6-10) configured to sever a terminal closure (26) on a strip of closures (26) exiting the strip guide (94; Figures 6-10 show separation as the closure exits the guide 94; Para. 0074, 0079, 0089-0090); and
a bag feed conveyor (“a bag neck delivery wheel assembly 72”) having a pair of laterally spaced-apart drive wheels (76, 77; Figures 3-5) and a complementary pair of laterally spaced-apart follower wheels (74, 75) urged into engagement for coaction with the drive wheels (76, 77) to deliver a bag neck (124; Figure 7) into the terminal closure (26; Para. 0077, 0085),
However, Irwin does not readily disclose the drive wheels and follower wheels each comprising a circumferential outer periphery having a hard outer peripheral non-stick surface (note the 112 rejections above) configured to reduce friction between the bag and the drive/follower wheels.
Attention can be brought to the teachings of Aquarius which includes a film material (2; Figure 1) for forming bags wherein the material (2) is fed through a feed conveyor (3, 4) of a sealing unit (1) wherein the conveyor comprises opposing belts (3, 4) and outer surfaces thereof formed of Teflon® and thereby includes surfaces of hard anti-stick/low friction material (Para. 0023; note per Applicant’s specification PTFE is used as the coating/outer surface material in Para. 0026 and therefore can be readily viewed as a “hard” surface and also note Claims 25 and 27 outline such a surface coating embodied as a PTFE material).
Use of Teflon® material or coatings on bag/packaging equipment such as rollers is well known in the art as taught by Joyce in order to reduce and/or alleviate any problems associated with the material sticking to the equipment (see Para. 0183). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the co-acting wheels Irwin to comprise a Teflon® material as taught by the co-acting conveyor belts of Aquarius. Therefore, the bags being conveyed therethrough will not stick to the rollers when conveyed and therefore jamming or other such problems can be prevented.
Further it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended u se as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations other than what is taught by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.07. The prior art as outlined above clearly teaches the use of such materials to reduce/prevent problems associated with the web material sticking to the rollers/wheels.
Regarding Claim 2, Irwin, as modified, discloses the circumferential outer periphery of each follower wheel (74, 75) comprises a semi-circular cross-sectional groove, and further comprising an O-ring of non-stick material providing the outer peripheral non-stick surface (see “Annotated View of Figure 6” below; note that based on the modification in view of Joyce and Aquarius, one would readily modify the “O-ring” to be of the Teflon® material as the O-ring is the structure that comes into contact with the bag material).
PNG
media_image1.png
412
342
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated View of Figure 6
Regarding Claim 4, Irwin, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention including the circumferential outer periphery of the drive wheels (76, 77) and the follower wheels (74, 75) comprising a friction-reducing material (see modification above). However, although the modification does not readily imply a friction-reducing layer deposited on the outer periphery of the drive wheels (76, 77) and the follower wheels (74, 75), attention is brought again to Joyce which outlines “a Teflon coating, or similar material, can be applied to one or more surfaces of the pouching equipment” (Para. 0183). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have incorporated the friction reducing Teflon® material onto the wheels of Irwin as a coating as taught by Joyce. By applying as a coating, the main bodies of the wheels can be manufactured with a sturdier material (i.e. steel) and the surfaces can exhibit the low friction properties.
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Irwin, as modified, discloses the hard outer peripheral non-stick surface being of PTFE/ Teflon® material (taught by Aquarius and Joyce) but does not disclose the surface has a dry contact static coefficient of friction against steel of less than .1 or less than .05, however, as outlined by the Applicant (see Para. 0027), “ PTFE has a static dry coefficient of friction against steel of 0.01”, therefore, it can be reasonably assumed that the material incorporated in view of Aquarius and Joyce will readily comprise such a dry contact static coefficient of friction. Note the alternative 103 rejection below.
Regarding Claim 7, Irwin, as modified, discloses the hard outer peripheral non-stick surface is a material shaped into an O-ring retained on an outer periphery of each of the follower wheels (74, 75; see “Annotated View of Figure 6” above; note that based on the modification in view of Joyce and Aquarius, one would readily modify the “O-ring” on the follower wheels to be of the Teflon® material as the O-ring is the structure that comes into contact with the bag material).
Regarding Claim 8, Irwin, as modified, discloses the O-ring (as shown in the “Annotated View of Figure 6” above) comprises a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) O-ring seated in a circumferential outer peripheral groove in each of the pair of follower wheels (74, 75; note that based on the modification in view of Joyce and Aquarius, one would readily modify the “O-ring” on the follower wheels to be of the Teflon® material as the O-ring is the structure that comes into contact with the bag material).
Regarding Claim 10, Irwin a bag feed conveyor (“a bag neck delivery wheel assembly 72”; Figure 2) for a bag closing apparatus (18; Figure 2), comprising:
a pair of laterally spaced-apart drive wheels (76, 77; Figures 3-5); and
a complementary pair of laterally spaced-apart follower wheels (74, 75) urged into engagement for coaction with the drive wheels (76, 77) to deliver a bag neck (124; Figure 7) into the terminal closure (26; Para. 0077, 0085).
However, Irwin does not disclose the circumferential outer periphery of each wheel of the follower wheels (74, 75) and drive wheels (76, 77) each having a hard outer peripheral non-stick surface configured to reduce friction between the bag and the drive/follower wheels.
Attention can be brought to the teachings of Aquarius which includes a film material (2; Figure 1) for forming bags wherein the material (2) is fed through a feed conveyor (3, 4) of a sealing unit (1) wherein the conveyor comprises opposing belts (3, 4) and outer surfaces thereof formed of Teflon® and thereby includes surfaces of anti-stick/ low friction material (Para. 0023).
Use of Teflon® material or coatings on bag/packaging equipment such as rollers is well known in the art as taught by Joyce in order to reduce and/or alleviate any problems associated with the material sticking to the equipment (see Para. 0183). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the co-acting wheels Irwin to comprise a Teflon® material as taught by the co-acting conveyor belts of Aquarius. Therefore, the bags being conveyed therethrough will not stick to the rollers when conveyed and therefore jamming or other such problems can be prevented.
Further it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations other than what is taught by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding Claims 15 and 16, Irwin, as modified, discloses the hard outer peripheral non-stick surface being of PTFE/ Teflon® material (taught by Aquarius and Joyce) but does not disclose the surface has a dry contact static coefficient of friction against steel of at most .1 or at most .05, however, as outlined by the Applicant (see Para. 0027), “ PTFE has a static dry coefficient of friction against steel of 0.01”, therefore, it can be reasonably assumed that the material incorporated in view of Aquarius and Joyce will readily comprise such a dry contact static coefficient of friction. Note the alternative 103 rejection below.
Regarding Claim 22, Irwin, as modified, discloses a pair of drive wheels (76, 77) are substantially parallel to one another and the pair of follower wheels (74, 75) are substantially parallel to one another (as clearly shown).
Regarding Claim 23, Irwin, as modified, discloses the pair of drive wheels (76, 77) are substantially parallel to one another and the pair of follower wheels (74, 75) are each provided on a common axis (i.e. as shown in Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 24, Irwin, as modified, discloses the common axis for the pair of drive wheels (76, 77) is substantially parallel to the common axis for the pair of follower wheels (74, 75; see “Annotated View of Figure 5” below).
PNG
media_image2.png
351
409
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated View of Figure 5
Regarding Claims 25 and 27, Irwin, as modified, discloses the hard outer peripheral non-stick surface comprises a low friction coating on the drive wheels (76, 77) and the follower wheels (74, 75) comprising a polytetrafluoroethylene/PTFE (as incorporated in view of Aquarius (Para. 0023) and Joyce (Para. 0183) above).
Regarding Claims 26 and 28, Irwin, as modified, discloses the hard outer peripheral non-stick surface being of PTFE/ Teflon® material (taught by Aquarius and Joyce) but does not disclose the surface has a dry contact static coefficient of friction against steel of at most .2, however, as outlined by the Applicant (see Para. 0027), “ PTFE has a static dry coefficient of friction against steel of 0.01”, therefore, it can be reasonably assumed that the material incorporated in view of Aquarius and Joyce will readily comprise such a dry contact static coefficient of friction. Note the alternative 103 rejection below.
Alternatively Claims 5, 6, 15, 16, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irwin (US PGPUB 2011/0079123-cited in IDS) in view of Aquarius (US PGPUB 2017/0072655), and Joyce (US PGPUB 2022/0225660) and in further view of NPL document “Teflon® (Polytetrafluoroethylene) PTFE and the Coefficient of Friction” and Fiedler (US Patent 3,711,090).
Alternatively regarding Claims 5-6, 15-16, 26 and 28, Irwin, as modified, discloses the hard outer peripheral non-stick surface which can be readily implied as having has a dry contact static coefficient of friction against steel of less than/at most .1 or less than/at most .05, however, assuming arguendo that such a material property cannot be readily assumed, in which the Examiner does not concede to, NPL document “Teflon® (Polytetrafluoroethylene) PTFE and the Coefficient of Friction” teaches Teflon® comprises a static dry coefficient of friction on steel of at most 0.2 (as outlined on the provided table).
Even further attention can be brought to Fiedler which outlines a coefficient of friction on steel of .04 (Col 3, lines 7-10) and further outlines coating steel to achieve even lower coefficients of friction (as low as .02 per Col 3, lines 15-19).
As outlined by “Teflon® (Polytetrafluoroethylene) PTFE and the Coefficient of Friction” and Fiedler, Teflon® can be readily configured to comprise a dry contact static coefficient of friction against steel as low as .02 (per Fiedler). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have configured the PTFE/ Teflon® to comprise such a dry contact static coefficient of friction against steel as taught by Teflon® (Polytetrafluoroethylene) PTFE and the Coefficient of Friction” and Fiedler in order to effectively reduce the friction and therefore wear on the rollers.
Further note where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I). In this instance, the prior art discloses a dry static coefficient of friction in the range of .02-.2 which overlaps the claimed ranges.
Claims 3 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irwin (US PGPUB 2011/0079123) in view of Aquarius (US PGPUB 2017/0072655) and Joyce (US PGPUB 2022/0225660), as applied to Claims 2 and 10, and in further view of Vantrease (US PGPUB 2023/0129996-cited in IDS).
Regarding Claim 3, Irwin, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention and although it can be implied that the circumferential outer periphery of each drive wheel (76, 77) comprises a semi-circular cross-sectional groove sized to mate in complementary relation with the O-ring (of 74, 75) based on the Figures 6-7, this is not clearly disclosed or shown.
Attention is brought to the teachings of Vantrease which clearly discloses such groove and O-ring configurations (see “Annotated View of Figure 5 Vantrease” below).
PNG
media_image3.png
329
457
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated View of Figure 5 Vantrease
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized such a groove formation within the drive wheels of Irwin as taught by Vantrease as such a modification allows for more complimentary surfaces which thereby increases the surface area of the bag in contact with the wheels.
Regarding Claim 11, Irwin, as modified, discloses the circumferential outer periphery of each follower wheel (74, 75) comprises a semi-circular cross-sectional groove, and further comprising an O-ring of friction-reducing material carried in the groove(see “Annotated View of Figure 6” above; note that based on the modification in view of Joyce and Aquarius, one would readily modify the “O-ring” to be of the Teflon® material as the O-ring is the structure that comes into contact with the bag material).
Note although the groove is not disclosed as asymmetrical by Irwin, attention can be brought to Vantrease which clearly depicts asymmetrical grooves of follower wheels (see “Annotated View of Figure 5 Vantrease” above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the follower wheels of Irwin to include such asymmetrical grooves as taught by Vantrease as such a feature readily allows for a quicker and easier replacement of the O-rings placed thereon.
Regarding Claim 12, Irwin, as modified, discloses the O-ring (as shown in the “Annotated View of Figure 6” above) comprises a polytetrafluoroethylene (note that based on the modification in view of Joyce and Aquarius, one would readily modify the “O-ring” on the follower wheels to be of the Teflon® material as the O-ring is the structure that comes into contact with the bag material).
Regarding Claim 13, Irwin, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention including the circumferential outer periphery of the drive wheels (76, 77) comprising a friction-reducing material (see modification above). However, although the modification does not readily imply a friction-reducing layer deposited on the outer periphery of the drive wheels (76, 77), attention is brought again to Joyce which outlines “a Teflon coating, or similar material, can be applied to one or more surfaces of the pouching equipment” (Para. 0183). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have incorporated the friction reducing Teflon® material onto the drive wheels of Irwin as a coating as taught by Joyce. By applying as a coating, the main bodies of the wheels can be manufactured with a sturdier material (i.e. steel).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irwin (US PGPUB 2011/0079123) in view of Aquarius (US PGPUB 2017/0072655) and Joyce (US PGPUB 2022/0225660), as applied to Claim 1, and in further view of Wetsch (US PGPUB 2015/0239592).
Regarding Claim 9, Irwin, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not disclose the hard outer peripheral non-stick surface is a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) coating applied to an anodized circumferential outer surface of the drive wheels.
Attention is brought to Wetsch which discloses post sealing rollers (160, 172; Figure 3, 11) wherein the rollers (160, 172) are formed by non-stick materials such as anodized aluminum, ceramic, silicone, or like non-stick/low-adhesion materials and wherein such material are coated with PTFE (see Para. 0075).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have formed the drive wheels of Irwin of an anodized material that is coated with PTFE as taught by Wetsch. Such a configuration will readily provide a low-adhesion/non-stick contact surface thereof.
Further it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations other than what is taught by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irwin (US PGPUB 2011/0079123) in view of Aquarius (US PGPUB 2017/0072655), Joyce (US PGPUB 2022/0225660), and Vantrease (US PGPUB 2023/0129996), as applied to Claim 13, and in further view of Wetsch (US PGPUB 2015/0239592).
Regarding Claim 14, Irwin, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not disclose each of the drive wheels (76, 77) comprises an anodized outer peripheral surface and the PTFE is deposited at least over the anodized outer peripheral surface.
Attention is brought to Wetsch which discloses post sealing rollers (160, 172; Figure 3, 11) wherein the rollers (160, 172) are formed by non-stick materials such as anodized aluminum, ceramic, silicone, or like non-stick/low-adhesion materials and wherein such material are coated with PTFE (see Para. 0075).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have formed the drive wheels of Irwin of an anodized material that is coated with PTFE as taught by Wetsch. Such a configuration will readily provide a low-adhesion/non-stick contact surface thereof.
Further it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations other than what is taught by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding Claim 21, Irwin, as modified, discloses the anodized outer peripheral surface is porous and the PTFE is deposited within the porous surface (note that anodized material such as “anodized aluminum” taught by Wetsch (Para. 0075) will readily be porous to some extent and therefore the pores would be readily filled with the coated PTFE material).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that:
PNG
media_image4.png
348
644
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully asserts that in view of the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a hard outer peripheral non-stick surface”, in light of the specification, the surfaces disclosed by the prior art read on such a limitation and it would have been readily obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized such materials in Irwin given the motivations outlined above.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that:
PNG
media_image5.png
424
630
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
347
633
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully asserts that it appears Applicant is further asserting that PTFE is a hard material as it is outlined in the remarks as “a solid material that can deform, but not under the operating loads” and eliminates the “micro-cracking” and therefore the disclosed PTFE material of the prior art can be readily viewed as such.
Further, although Applicant outlines the benefits of such material to prevent “wrap-around” of the bag material, the fact that Applicant uses such a surface for a different purpose does not alter the conclusion that its use in a prior art device would be prima facie obvious from the purpose disclosed in the reference." In re Lintner, 173 USPQ 560. As outlined in the rejections above, such surfaces incorporated on the rollers prevent the bags being conveyed therethrough from sticking to the rollers when conveyed and therefore jamming or other such problems can be prevented.
Examiner respectfully asserts that Irwin, as modified, discloses the claimed invention as outlined but also points to the 112 rejections as it is unclear as to what can be readily viewed as a hard contact surface and whether TEFLON can be viewed as such considering it is claimed as a hard surface (i.e. see Claims 9, 25, 27) but is commonly not viewed as a “hard” material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. see “Notice of References Cited”.
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 JOSHUA G KOTIS whose telephone number is (571)270-0165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6am-430pm.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/JOSHUA G KOTIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 7/20/2026
Prosecution Insights