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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed 9/23/2024 has been entered.
Claims 1-10 have been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/2/2024 and 9/23/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 1, line 13, “a movement axis” would be better recited as “a first movement axis”.
-Claims 2, 3, and 5, “the movement axis” would be better recited as “the first movement axis”. Note objection below.
-Claim 5, line 3, “a movement axis (42)” would be better recited as “a second movement axis (42)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7-10 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 7, the claim recites “A method for feeding containers” but does not subsequently explicitly recite what method steps are being included therefore rendering the claim indefinite. For example, line 4 recites “wherein a lift unit (18) of the container feeding device is moved by a movement unit (26)”. It is unclear if this limitation is reciting the ability of the lift unit to be moved by a movement unit or if this limitation is attempting to refer to a step of moving, for example, “moving a lift unit by a movement unit” which would clearly indicate a step of “moving”. Note for examination purposes, this will be interpreted as a moving step.
Further, Claims 8-10 are also rendered indefinite for the same reasoning as no specific method step is recited as the claims are drafted in an intended use/functional format. For example, Claim 8 recites “the lift unit (18) is actively moved” but to clearly outline the process step this would be recited in a manner such as “actively moving the lift unit”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least one lift unit (18) for a transport of the containers” and “at least one movement unit (26) which supports the at least one lift unit” in claim 1.
(1)“at least one lift unit” is being interpreted as including the structure “at least one lift element” and equivalents thereof in view of the recitation “at least one lift element, in particular a lift finger, for a transport of the containers, in particular of a container stack, along the lifting direction” outlined in Para. [0010].
(2)“at least one movement unit” is being interpreted as including the structure “at least one drive” outlined in Para. [0014] and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Note “at least one magazine unit” on line 4 of Claim 1 is being interpreted as NOT INVOKING 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as “magazine” is viewed as a structural modifier to the term “unit”.
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 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seiji (EP 1132301A2), in view of Lee (KR1020200030182-cited in IDS, note the English translation provided in the previously submitted copy is relied upon for reference below including paragraph numbering).
Regarding Claim 1, Seiji discloses a container feeding device (Figure 1; Para. 0018) for feeding containers (C) to a metering and/or filling device (see Para. 0001 which outlines the feeding to a packaging machine cups to be filled), the container feeding device comprising:
at least one magazine unit (stacker 31) for receiving a plurality of containers (C; Para. 0022);
at least one lift unit (35) for a transport of the containers (C) along a lifting direction (along guide shown in Figure 1, at “an angle of 15 degrees from a vertical”) of the at least one lift unit (35; Para. 0023, 0049).
However, Seiji does not readily disclose at least one movement unit which supports the at least one lift unit (35) such that the at least one lift unit (35) is movable relative to the at least one magazine unit (31) along a movement axis (30) of the at least one lift unit (35) that runs transverse to the lifting direction.
Attention is brought to the teachings of Lee which includes a container feeding device (cup supply device 200; Figures 2, 6; Para. 0040) for feeding containers (4) to a metering and/or filling device (500) the container feeding device (200) comprising:
at least one magazine unit (210) for receiving a plurality of containers (4; Para. 0040);
a cup supporting unit (257, 254), of a cup receiving unit (250), configured to receive cups from the magazine unit (210 via 230; see Para. 0047) and for a transport of the containers (4) along a slide operating unit (260; Para. 0048);
at least one movement unit (256; Figure 9) which supports the cup supporting unit (257, 254) such that the cup supporting unit (257, 254) is movable relative to the at least one magazine unit (210) along a movement axis (forward/backward movement; see “Annotated View of Figure 9” below) of the cup supporting unit (254, 257) that runs transverse to the vertical stacking direction to receive a stack of cups (4; see Paras. 0020, 0045-0047; note Para. 0045 recites “a forward/backward moving bracket (257) installed to be able to move straight on the rotating bracket (252) and moving forward and backward toward the magazine unit (210)”).
PNG
media_image1.png
715
569
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated View of Figure 9
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 device of Seiji to have incorporated a movement unit as taught by Lee that moves the lifter unit (supporting unit of Lee) towards and away from the magazine unit as taught by Lee. By modifying Seiji in this manner, the cups can be readily received/transferred from the magazine unit and separated from the remaining stacks of cups in the magazine unit and therefore will not interfere with the remaining stacks of cups not engaged by the lifter unit when lifted/conveyed away from the magazine unit.
Regarding Claim 2, Seiji, as modified, discloses wherein the movement axis (see “Annotated View of Figure 9” of Lee above) of the at least one lift unit (35 of Seiji), along which the at least one lift unit (35) is supported so as to be movable relative to the at least one magazine unit (31), is oriented with an inclination relative to a horizontal plane (as shown in “Annotated View of Figure 9” of Lee above).
Regarding Claim 3, Seiji, as modified, discloses wherein the at least one movement unit (256 of Lee) comprises at least one drive (cylinder 256 per Para. 0045 of Lee) by which the at least one lift unit (35 of Seiji) is actively movable along the movement axis (as incorporated by Lee) of the at least one lift unit (35) relative to the at least one magazine unit (31 of Seiji; see Paras. 0045-0047 of Lee for reference).
Regarding Claim 6, Seiji, as modified, discloses a production machine (“packaging machine”; Para. 0018) with at least one container feeding device according to claim 1 (as outlined above).
Regarding Claim 7, Seiji discloses a method for feeding containers (C) to a metering and/or filling device (see Para. 0001 which outlines the feeding to a packaging machine cups to be filled) by a container feeding device (Figure 1) wherein a lift unit (35) of the container feeding device is moved by a movement unit (drive of 35; Para. 0023) relative to a magazine unit (31) of the container feeding device (Figure 1).
But Seiji does not disclose such movement is along a movement axis of the lift unit (35) that run transverse to a lifting direction of the lift unit (35).
Attention was brought to the teachings of Lee (see the rejection of Claim 1 above for reference).
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 method of Seiji to have incorporated a movement unit as taught by Lee to move the lifter unit (supporting unit of Lee) towards and away from the magazine unit as taught by Lee. By modifying Seiji in this manner, the cups can be readily received/transferred from the magazine unit and separated from the remaining stacks of cups in the magazine unit and therefore will not interfere with the remaining stacks of cups not engaged by the lifter unit during lifting/movement away from the magazine unit.
Regarding Claim 8, Seiji, as modified, discloses the lift unit (35) is actively moved by at least one drive (256 of Lee) of the movement unit (256 of Lee) up to a proximity region (of stopper part 240 of Lee) of a movably supported stopper element (stopper part 240 of Lee) of the magazine unit (31 of Seiji; note in order to perform as disclosed by Seiji, a form of stopper must exist or is at least implied), and up to a proximity region (of conveyor of 31 of Seiji as shown) of a transport element (of conveyor of 31 of Seiji as shown) of the magazine unit (31 of Seiji as shown; as modified by Lee, the lift unit of Seiji will readily shift/move towards the stop/transport element of the magazine 31).
Claims 4, 5 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seiji (EP 1132301A2), in view of Lee (KR1020200030182-cited in IDS), and in further view of Minoura (JPH0457721A-note attached English translation for reference to pages and line numbers) and Paganini (US PGPUB 2022/0258890).
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, Seiji, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not readily disclose the at least one lift unit (35) comprises at least one movably supported lateral guide element, which is configured for at least partially encompassing or covering the containers in a state when the containers are arranged in the at least one lift unit and is silent on a movement axis of the at least one guide element runs transverse to the movement axis of the at least one lift unit (35).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Seiji, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not readily disclose actively moving lateral guide elements of the lift unit (35), which is configured for at least partially sidewise encompassing the containers in a state when the containers are arranged in the lift unit (35) in opposed directions.
First, attention is Minoura which includes another container feeding device (1; Figure 1) which includes a lifter unit (elevator 60) which includes lateral guide elements (43; Figure 4; see Page 7, lines 4-9 of translation as the lateral guide elements are used with the elevator).
While it can be readily implied that some form of lateral guides are associated with the lift unit of Seiji, this is not explicitly disclosed and regardless, 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 lifter unit of Seiji to include lateral guide elements as taught by Minoura to ensure lateral stability of the stack of containers as they are lifted.
While none of the prior art references disclose the lateral guide elements being moveably supported along a movement axis that runs transverse to the movement axis of the at least one lift unit, attention can be brought to the teachings of Paganini which includes a packaging device (1) which includes a lift unit (elevator 3) including movably supported lateral guide elements (15A, 15B), which are configured for at least partially encompassing or covering conveyed objects (rolls R) as they are arranged in the lift unit (3) and a movement axis (lateral/horizontal axis) of the guide elements (15A, 15B) runs transverse to a lifting direction of the lift unit (3; Paras. 0045, 0055).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have incorporated a lateral adjustment (with the guides taught by Minoura) in Seiji as exemplified by Paganini, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves routine skill in the art . In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). Please note that in the instant application, has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. As outlined by Paganini such adjustment will readily accommodate articles of different sizes (Para. 0045, 0055).
Further note, such adjustment will readily lead to a movement axis of the guides that extends transverse to the movement axis of the lift unit.
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, in view of Minoura and Paganini above, such a modification would readily lead to actively moving lateral guides in opposed directions as claimed.
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 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Cao (US PGPUB 2021/0179305).
Regarding Claim 1, Cao discloses container feeding device (Para. 0013) for feeding containers (boxes 1; Figure 1) to a filling device (i.e. at packaging platform 30), the container feeding device comprising:
at least one magazine unit (loading platform 10) for receiving a plurality of containers (1; Para. 0013-“The packaging box loading platform 10 is adapted to load one or more piles of the packaging boxes 1 stacked together”);
at least one lift unit (robot 100 which readily includes a “lift element” 110) for a transport of the containers (1) along a lifting direction (picking up direction) of the at least one lift unit (100), and
at least one movement unit (drive of robot 100 including robot arm) which supports the at least one lift unit (110) such that the at least one lift unit (110) is movable relative to the at least one magazine unit (10) along a movement axis (see below) of the at least one lift unit (110) that runs transverse to the lifting direction (see “Annotated View of Figure 1” below which outlines one example of “a movement axis” transverse to a lifting direction and based on the movement of the robot, several movement axis would be present that are transverse to the lifting direction).
PNG
media_image2.png
511
624
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated View of Figure 1
Regarding Claim 2, Cao discloses wherein the movement axis (shown above) of the at least one lift unit (110), along which the at least one lift unit (110) is supported so as to be movable relative to the at least one magazine unit (10), is oriented with an inclination relative to a horizontal plane (note that the robot 100 is clearly capable of such movement).
Regarding Claim 3, Cao discloses wherein the at least one movement unit (drive of 100) comprises at least one drive (drive of 100) by which the at least one lift unit (110) is actively movable along the movement axis (shown above) of the at least one lift unit (110) relative to the at least one magazine unit (10).
Regarding Claim 6, Cao discloses a production machine (shown in Figure 1) with at least one container feeding device (including 100 and 10; Figure 1) according to claim 1 (see above).
Regarding Claim 7, Cao discloses a method for feeding containers (1; Figure 1) to a filling device (at 30) by a container feeding device (100, 10) wherein a lift unit (110) of the container feeding device is moved by a movement unit (drive of 100) relative to a magazine unit (10) of the container feeding device along a movement axis (as shown in “Annotated View of Figure 1” above) of the lift unit (110) that run transverse to a lifting direction (as shown above) of the lift unit (110; Paras. 0013-0014).
Regarding Claim 8, Cao discloses the lift unit (110) is actively moved by at least one drive (drive of robot 100) of the movement unit (of 100) up to a proximity region (area of 10) of a transport element (propelling device 13 and supports thereof) of the magazine unit (10; Para. 0021; note that the “proximity region” can be viewed as the picking area associated with the loading platform and its transport element/propelling device).
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Showman (US PGPUB 2021/0094716).
Regarding Claim 1, Showman discloses container feeding device (supply station 12 and handling station 14; Figures 1-2) for feeding containers (102; Figures 5, 6, 8-12) to a filling device (16; Paras. 0053-0055; Para. 0049 outlines closing and filling stations), the container feeding device comprising:
at least one magazine unit (11) for receiving a plurality of containers (102);
at least one lift unit (gripping hand 36) for a transport of the containers (102) along a lifting direction (up out of magazine 11) of the at least one lift unit (36; Para. 0057), and
at least one movement unit (drive of robot 15 including arm 32) which supports the at least one lift unit (36) such that the at least one lift unit (36) is movable relative to the at least one magazine unit (11) along a movement axis (movement axis/direction shown in Figures 8-11) of the at least one lift unit (36) that runs transverse to the lifting direction (vertical direction of the magazine 11; Paras. 0053-0055; note that the robot is clearly capable of several movements along several axis that are transverse to the lifting direction; alternatively, Para. 0051 outlines that “the robot 15 is mounted on a support (e.g., a moveable base, such as a rotatable base or turntable 13, or the like)” and therefore would also be able to move transverse in this manner via a drive thereof).
Regarding Claim 2, Showman discloses the movement axis of the at least one lift unit (36), along which the at least one lift unit (36) is supported so as to be movable relative to the at least one magazine unit (11), is oriented with an inclination relative to a horizontal plane (i.e. the floor and as outlined the robot 15 is clearly capable of movement in several directions including an inclined direction relative to floor/horizontal plane).
Regarding Claim 3, Showman discloses wherein the at least one movement unit (drive of 15) comprises at least one drive (drive of robot 15) by which the at least one lift unit (36) is actively movable along the movement axis of the at least one lift unit (36) relative to the at least one magazine unit (11; see Paras. 0053-0055).
Regarding Claim 6, Showman discloses a production machine (10; Figures 1-2) with at least one container feeding device (12, 14 including 15) according to claim 1 (see above).
Regarding Claim 7, Showman discloses a method for feeding containers (102; Figure 2, 5, 6) to a filling device (16; Figures 2, 8-11; Para. 0049) by a container feeding device (12, 14 including 15) wherein a lift unit (36) of the container feeding device (12, 14, 15) is moved by a movement unit (drive of robot 15) relative to a magazine unit (11) of the container feeding device along a movement axis (defined by path from Figure 9-10) of the lift unit (36) that run transverse to a lifting direction (direction of pick up from magazine 11) of the lift unit (36; Para. 0053-0055 disclose the picking up of container 102 and moving the container across the handling station).
Regarding Claim 8, Showman discloses the lift unit (36) is actively moved by at least one drive (of 15) of the movement unit (of 15) up to a proximity region (top of magazine 11) of a transport element (i.e. support 20) of the magazine unit (11; see Figure 6).
Examiner’s Note
Examiner notes that the following proposed amendment to Claim 1 below would appear to overcome the prior art cited but may require additional search and/or consideration.
1. (Proposed) A container feeding device for feeding containers to a metering and/or filling device , the container feeding device comprising:
at least one magazine unit for receiving a plurality of container stacks ,
at least one lift unit for a transport of the container stacks along a lifting direction of the at least one lift unit, and
at least one movement unit , comprising a linear drive, which supports the at least one lift unit such that the at least one lift unit is movable relative to the at least one magazine unit along a linear movement axis of the at least one lift unit that runs transverse to the lifting direction and is oriented with an inclination relative to a horizontal plane,
wherein the at least one magazine unit, the at least one lift unit and the at least one movement unit are supported by a bearing unit in such a way that the at least one magazine unit, the at least one lift unit and the at least one movement unit are movable together a horizontal movement axis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. see “Notice of References Cited”.
-Mancini (CA 1169818 A) discloses a container chute (2; Figure 1) comprising movably supported lateral guide elements (4).
-Mojden (US Patent 4,000,709) discloses a can feed unit comprising can chutes with laterally moveable guide portions.
-Carson (US Patent 5,136,826) discloses a container stack handling system.
-Bowerman (US Patent 11,884,437) discloses a cup feeding apparatus which includes movement units (50, 52; Figure 3) for moving stacks of containers.
-Toyoura (JP 2003136458 A) discloses a container stack transfer apparatus with a magazine unit, a lifting unit, and a movement unit.
-Fusy (US PGPUB 2023/0150707) and Tsutsumi (US PGPUB 2013/0036716) discloses a magazine unit, a lifting unit (robot), and a movement unit (robot drive).
-Mueller (US PGPUB 2019/0315504) discloses a container stack magazine unit comprising moveable stack gates.
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 11/12/2025