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 .
Application Status
This action is responsive to the claims filed 20 May 2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and being examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 20 May 2026 has been entered.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 24 November 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 12,122,591 has been reviewed and is NOT accepted.
The applicant cited on the terminal disclaimer must be cited exactly as it is cited on the ADS and or filing receipt and also in its entirety. If more space for applicant section is required, please use smaller fonts or submit an attachment page to the terminal disclaimer.
It should be noted that applicant is not required to pay another disclaimer fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.20(d) when submitting a replacement or supplemental terminal disclaimer.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,122,591. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitations of the parent reads on currently filed claims of this application. As shown in the table below, differences in language are underlined in claim 1 and explained below the table. Claims 2-17 are identical to the patent claims. In the table claim 18 is bolded, underlined, and italicized to show what parts are mapped to claims 18 and 19 of the patent. Claim 20 is recited in claim 1 of the patent.
Present Application
US 12,122,591
1. A method of collecting a flowable material, said method comprising the steps of:
(a) placing a container assembly on a support surface,
said container assembly including a flexible bag and a flexible collection skirt extending from the bag,
said bag being in a collapsed configuration and said skirt being in a flat configuration during the course of step (a), such that a lower face of the skirt and a bottom wall of the bag are closely adjacent one another and the lower face of the skirt and the bottom wall of the bag are each supported by the support surface,
said bag defining a bag interior that presents an open bag top defining a periphery,
said skirt extending outwardly from the bag at the periphery,
said skirt presenting a central skirt opening at the periphery, such that the central skirt opening is coextensive with the open bag top;
(b) depositing a quantity of the flowable material onto the container assembly such that the quantity of flowable material is disposed in both the central skirt opening and the open bag top;
(c) gathering the skirt such that an outer margin of the skirt shifts inward toward an upright axis of the bag; and
(d) lifting the skirt to facilitate shifting of the bag from the collapsed configuration to an expanded configuration and passage of the quantity of flowable material from said central skirt opening and said open bag top into the bag interior.
1. A method of collecting a flowable material, said method comprising the steps of:
(a) placing a container assembly on a support surface,
said container assembly including a flexible bag defining a bag interior and a flexible collection skirt secured to the bag,
said bag being in a collapsed configuration and said skirt being in a flat configuration during the course of step (a), such that a lower face of the skirt and a bottom wall of the bag are closely adjacent one another and the lower face of the skirt and the bottom wall of the bag are each supported by the support surface,
said bag interior presenting an open bag top defining a periphery,
said skirt secured to the bag at the periphery and extending outwardly therefrom,
said skirt presenting a central skirt opening at the periphery, such that the central skirt opening and the open bag top are at least substantially congruent;
(b) depositing a quantity of the flowable material onto the container assembly such that the quantity of flowable material is disposed over the open bag top;
(c) after step (b), gathering the skirt such that an outer margin of the skirt shifts inward toward an upright axis of the bag; and
(d) lifting the skirt to facilitate shifting of the bag from the collapsed configuration to an expanded configuration and passage of the quantity of flowable material from said central skirt opening and said open bag top into the bag interior,
said central skirt opening and said open bag top each maintaining an at least substantially constant shape and size at the completion of step (a) and after completion of step (d).
Claims 2-17 are identical
Claims 2-17 are identical
18. The method of
said open bag top and said central skirt opening each being rectangular in cross-sectional shape,
said bag being quadrate in plan, with the bag interior being rectangular in cross-sectional shape when the bag is in the expanded configuration,
said cross-sectional shapes of the bag interior, open bag top, and central skirt opening all being coextensive when the bag is in the expanded configuration.
18. The method of claim 1,
said bag interior presenting a constant bag interior cross-section when the bag is in the expanded configuration,
said bag interior cross-section being at least substantially congruent with each of said bag open top and said central skirt opening after completion of step (d).
19. The method of claim 18,
said bag open top and said central skirt opening each being rectangular in cross-sectional shape both at the completion of step (a) and after completion of step (d),
said bag being quadrate in plan, with the bag interior being rectangular in cross-sectional shape when the bag is in the expanded configuration.
20. The method of claim 1,
step (c) commencing after completion of step (b).
1. A method …
(c) after step (b)…
As shown in the table above, the difference of language in claim 1:
“the central skirt opening is coextensive with the open bag top” does not differentiate from the patent because the limitation of coextensive is broader and synonymous to “the central skirt opening and the open bag top are at least substantially congruent”, therefore the patent reads on the current claim limitations.
“depositing a quantity of the flowable material onto the container assembly such that the quantity of flowable material is disposed in both the central skirt opening and the open bag top” does not differentiate from the patent because step (b) recites “quantity of flowable material is disposed over the open bag top” and step (d) recites “quantity of flowable material from said central skirt opening and said open bag top”, therefore the patent reads on the current claim limitations.
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.
Claim(s) 1-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotton (US 8,117,971).
Cotton teaches:
Claim 1: A method of collecting a flowable material (Abstract), said method comprising the steps of:
(a) placing a container assembly (10-fig.1) on a support surface (14-fig.1),
said container assembly including a flexible bag (24-fig.2) and a flexible collection skirt (12-fig.1) extending from the bag (2:40-46; see fig.2 showing 12 extending from 24),
said bag (24-fig.2) being in a collapsed configuration and said skirt being in a flat configuration (2:44-49) during the course of step (a), such that a lower face of the skirt and a bottom wall of the bag are closely adjacent one another and the lower face of the skirt and the bottom wall of the bag are each supported by the support surface (see fig.1 showing the bag walls of 24 adjacent to the lower face of 12 when laying on the picnic table; 2:40-49),
said bag defining a bag interior (see figs.1-2 showing a bag interior for the trash to be placed in; 2:44-49) that presents an open bag top (22-fig.1) defining a periphery (2:40-46),
said skirt (12-fig.1) extending outwardly from the bag (24-fig.2; see fig.2 showing 12 extending outwardly from 24) at the periphery and (2:40-46),
said skirt (12-fig.1) presenting a central skirt opening (22-fig.1) at the periphery, such that the central skirt opening is coextensive with the open bag top (see fig.1 showing 12 and 22 are heat sealed to create a congruent opening, the central opening and bag top are heat sealed, so they will always be coextensive; 2:40-49);
(b) depositing a quantity of the flowable material (28-figs.1-2) onto the container assembly (10-fig.1) such that the quantity of flowable material is disposed on the skirt (2:44-49; see fig.1 showing opening 22 having arrows of where the trash can be placed on 22 when in the collapsed configuration);
(c) gathering the skirt such that an outer margin of the skirt shifts inward toward an upright axis of the bag (2:53-57; fig.2); and
(d) lifting the skirt to facilitate shifting of the bag from the collapsed configuration to an expanded configuration and passage of the quantity of flowable material from said central skirt opening and said open bag top into the bag interior (2:53-59; fig.2).
Cotton does not expressly disclose a quantity of flowable material is disposed in both the central skirt opening and the open bag top.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant's claimed invention, that some of the trash (flowable particulate material) could be placed over the open bag top because as shown in figure 1 the slit is partially open and trash can and will likely be placed on the slit (open bag top and skirt opening).
Claim 2: The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of:
(e) depositing a secondary quantity of flowable material (28-fig.1) onto an upper face of the skirt (12-fig.1),
said secondary quantity of flowable material being directed toward the central skirt opening (2:44-49; see fig.1 showing opening 22 having arrows of where the trash can be placed on 22 when in the collapsed configured) and the open bag top (22-fig.1) during the course of step (c) and passing into the bag interior during the course of step (d) (2:53-59; fig.2).
Claim 3: The method of claim 2,
steps (b) and (e) occurring simultaneously (see fig.1 showing a plurality of trash items 28 being deposited on the skirt 12 simultaneously).
Claim 4: The method of claim 1,
steps (c) and (d) occurring simultaneously (2:53-59; fig.2).
Claim 5: The method of claim 1,
said bag including a foldable sidewall projecting from the bottom wall (see fig.2 showing the bag 24 has a bottom and foldable to lay flat; 2:44-46),
said bottom wall and said foldable sidewall at least in part defining the bag interior (see fig.2 showing the bag 24 has a bottom, the bottom is the portion of the bag that is opposite of the opening of the bag, and holds the contents within the bag),
said sidewall being folded during steps (a) and (b) (2:40-46) and unfolding during step (d) (2:53-59).
Claim 6: The method of claim 1,
said bottom wall of the bag (see Fig. 2 showing the bag 24 has a bottom, the bottom is the portion of the bag that is opposite of the opening of the bag, and holds the contents within the bag) being spaced from the lower skirt face a greater distance when the bag is in the expanded configuration than when the bag is in the collapsed configuration (see fig.1 shows the bag bottom close to the skirt and in fig.2 spaced away from the skirt).
Claim 7: The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of:
(f) lifting the container assembly (10-fig.1) to elevate the container assembly and the quantity of material (28-fig.1) contained therein relative to the support surface (fig.2; 2:53-59).
Claim 8: The method of claim 7,
said bag including lifting structures (27-figs.2-3),
step (f) including the step of using the lifting structures to lift the container assembly and the flowable material therein (2:65-3:3).
Claim 9: The method of claim 8,
said lifting structures (27-figs.2-3) being concealed below the lower face of the skirt during steps (a) and (b) (see fig.1 showing the assembly in the collapsed configuration where 27 is shown as a dash line as it is under 12; 2:50-52),
said lifting structures being revealed during the course of step (c) (see fig.2 showing 27 is exposed when the bag is lifted upwardly).
Claim 10: The method of claim 8,
said lifting structures (27-fig.2) being secured to the bag adjacent the periphery of the open bag top (2:50-52; see fig.1 showing the dashed line 29 around the bag opening 22).
Claim 11: The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of:
(g) closing said skirt (3:4-8),
step (g) occurring after completion of step (c) (fig.2 shows step (c) and fig.3 shows step (d)).
Claim 12: The method of claim 11,
step (g) including the step of cinching the skirt (3:4-8).
Claim 13: The method of claim 11,
said skirt (12-fig.1) including a drawstring (18-fig.1) for cinching the skirt (3:4-8).
Claim 14: The method of claim 1,
said skirt (12-fig.1) including a gathering apparatus (18-fig.1),
said gathering apparatus (18-fig.1) including a plurality of gathering loops disposed at spaced locations adjacent the outer margin (3:4-8; see figs. 1-2 showing a plurality of loops 18 spaced around the margin of12),
step (c) including the step of shifting the gathering loops toward the upright axis of the bag, such that the gathering loops are clustered about the upright axis of the bag (fig.3; 3:4-8).
Claim 15: The method of claim 1,
said skirt (12-fig.1) lying in a plane at least substantially orthogonal to the upright axis of the bag when the skirt is in the flat configuration (2:44-46; see fig.1 showing the skirt laying on the table and orthogonal to the upright axis).
Claim 16: The method of claim 1,
said outer margin of the skirt being substantially circular (2:27-29).
Claim 17: The method of claim 1,
said bag open top having a bag open top area (22-fig.1),
said skirt (12-fig.1) having a skirt area that is greater than said bag open top area (see fig.1 showing the area of 12 is greater than the area of 22).
Claim 19: The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of (h) securing the skirt to the bag at the periphery (2:40-49), step (h) including the step of connecting a segment of the skirt to a foldable sidewall of the bag (2:40-49).
Claim 20: The method of step (c) commencing after completion of step (b) (2:53-64).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotton (US 8,117,971) in view of Beale (US 2010/0290887).
Claim 18: Cotton teaches the method of claim 1,
Cotton does not expressly teach the open bag top and said central skirt opening each being rectangular in cross-sectional shape, said bag being quadrate in plan, with the bag interior being rectangular in cross-sectional shape when the bag is in the expanded configuration, said cross-sectional shapes of the bag interior, open bag top, and central skirt opening all being coextensive when the bag is in the expanded configuration.
However, Beale teaches the open bag top (366-fig.3B) and said central skirt opening (374-fig.3B) each being rectangular in cross-sectional shape (¶[0060]; see fig.3B showing the opening and skirt having a rectangular shape),
said bag (30-fig.3B) being quadrate in plan (¶[0060]), with the bag interior being rectangular in cross-sectional shape when the bag is in the expanded configuration (see fig.3B showing the bag interior rectangular in shape in the expanded configuration),
said cross-sectional shapes of the bag interior, open bag top, and central skirt opening all being coextensive when the bag is in the expanded configuration (see fig.3B showing them as coextensive).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant's claimed invention, to modify the container of Cotton, by having a rectangular bag with a rectangular opening, as taught by Beale, as an obvious change in shape. MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B). In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). Please note that in the instant application, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. In the Applicant’s specification they state that “[o]f course, the bag may be of any other desired shape (e.g., cylindrical or octagonal), and the size thereof is limited only by design considerations for the intended use of the assembly 10.” Which, further proves that there is no criticality for the shape of the bag and is merely a matter of design choice.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Non-Statutory Double Patenting (Remarks p. 7)
Applicant states that the current amendments were accompanied by a Terminal Disclaimer. However, no Terminal Disclaimer was filed on 20 May 2026. The double patenting rejection is maintained until a proper Terminal Disclaimer is filed.
Cotton Is Not Analogous Art and Should Not Be Applied Against the Claimed Invention (Remarks p. 8-9)
Cotton is analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor' s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Cotton is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, which is the collection of material in an easy manner, wherein the bag starts in a flat configuration and when picked up the material falls into a further flexible bag to be fully contained.
Applicant narrowly construes their own invention of being a flexible intermediate bulk container (FIBC) for industrial use and narrowly construes the prior art of Cotton as being only a party tablecloth. However, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation and the claims are drawn merely to a flexible bag.
Applicant further argues that “[t]he claimed invention is directed to a flexible intermediate bulk container (FIBC) for industrial use”. Examiner notes that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., flexible intermediate bulk container (FIBC)) 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). The claim recites a “container assembly including a flexible bag defining a bag interior and a flexible collection skirt extending from the bag”, which is given its broadest reasonable interpretation when examining the claims.
Cotton Fails to Show or Suggest the Claimed Depositing Step (Remarks p. 10-12)
Applicant argues “the "depositing" step, or step (b), denotes active, intentional, and purposeful placement of a quantity of material such that it is disposed in both the central skirt opening and the open bag top.” Applicant appears to be arguing that in Cotton figure 1 where the plates and cups are placed are the only places the user of the flexible bag would place items. However, it would be very obvious that the trash items would be placed anywhere on top of the upper portion 12 and bag opening 22, for example the birth cake that is usually placed in the center of the table would be intentionally and purposefully placed on the upper portion 12 and bag opening 22. Therefore, teaching the claim limitations.
Cotton does not teach away from step (b), which requires “depositing a quantity of the flowable material onto the container assembly such that the quantity of flowable material is disposed in both the central skirt opening and the open bag top”. As shown in figure 1, when the table cloth and trash bag combination is disposed on top of a picnic table, the bag opening 22 is clearly exposed and capable of being partially open, therefore capable of receiving items within be that a crumb from food. No where in Cotton does it say the bag opening 22 is covered by tape or partially sealed to prevent items from being placed on top or within while used as a table cloth. Rather as shown in figure 1 the opening is fully exposed and partially opened where a user can place anything on or in it while used in the flat table cloth configuration.
Applicant argues that “[t]he Office has unjustifiably extrapolated the depiction of the slit 22 in FIG. 1 to improperly read the disclosure of Cotton on the express and intentional limitations of pending claim 1.” Cotton does not say the bag opening 22 is covered by tape or partially sealed to prevent items from being placed on top or within while used as a table cloth. Rather as shown in figure 1 the opening is fully exposed and partially opened where a user can place anything on or in it while used in the flat table cloth configuration. Due to opening 22 being just that an opening, it would be obvious that the opening is capable and very likely partially open when in use due to nothing making the opening stay closed or covering said opening.
Applicant argues “[t]he mere fact that Cotton could be modified as proposed by the Office does not make the modification obvious because the prior art (including Cotton) provides absolutely no suggestion that such a modification would be remotely desirable.” Applicant does not specifically argue why it would not be obvious. It is obvious that someone would very likely put something on the center of the table that is both in the opening and on the bag top, for example a birthday cake, crumb, or a piece of dust. Applicant is arguing that the plates and cups in figure 1 would be the only locations where the cups and plates would be places, which is obviously not the intention of the invention but is merely one example. It would be obvious that items can be placed anywhere on the top of the table cloth, which includes over and partially within the opening.
Sequence of Steps Neither Shown Nor Suggested by Cotton (Remarks p. 12-13)
Applicant argues “[a]lternatively described, and maintaining the view expressed above that items are not initially "deposited" in or on the slit 22 in Cotton's method, material enters the central opening or slit 22 of Cotton only as a consequence of and therefore only simultaneous with or after the gathering and lifting steps. That is, Cotton neither discloses nor suggests any method in which material is purposefully deposited into the slit opening and bag top before gathering commences.” As shown in figure 1, when the table cloth and trash bag combination is disposed on top of a picnic table, the bag opening 22 is clearly exposed and capable of being partially open, therefore capable of receiving items within be that a crumb from food. No where in Cotton does it say the bag opening 22 is covered by tape or partially sealed to prevent items from being placed on top or within while used as a table cloth. Rather as shown in figure 1 the opening is fully exposed and partially opened where a user can place anything on or in it while used in the flat table cloth configuration. Then, after this step as shown “[i]n FIG. 2, the subject invention 10 is now used as a trash bag by folding the corners 16 of the table cloth upper portion 12 upwardly, as indicated by arrows 26, and spreading apart the elongated opening 22 and unfolding the trash bag lower portion 22. The upper portion 12 is now used to funnel trash items 28 into the opening 22. The various trash items 28 are shown in solid and dashed lines.” (Cotton 2:53-59). Therefore, Cotton clearly teaches the sequenced steps recited in claim 20.
The Cotton/Beale Combination Lacks the Required Motivation (Remarks p. 13)
See new rejection of claim 18 above. The bag shape is merely a matter of design choice, specifically a change in shape. Beale is used to teach that a rectangular bag is known in the art. Applicant has provided no criticality for this claim limitation, but admits it is a matter of design choice depending on the bags intended use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATIE L GERTH whose telephone number is (303)297-4602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-4pm (CT).
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.
/KATIE L GERTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights