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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on October 31, 2025 was received has been entered. Claims 1-13 are in the application and are currently being examined. Claims 8-13 were previously considered allowable. Claims 14-20 have been previously withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Interpretation
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: “spinning element” and “receiving portion” in claims 1 and 8; “locking mechanism” in claim 5; “locking element” in claim 9; and “control device” in claim 7.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The previous rejection of claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20040013830 A1 to Nonomura et al (hereinafter Nonumura) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20070037684 A1 to Moscone, Sr et al (hereinafter Moscone) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240200276 A1 to Winzinger et al (hereinafter Winzinger) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20230287205 A1 to Hammersky et al (hereinafter Hammersky) is being withdrawn.
Regarding claim 1, Nonomura teaches a machine for coating molded fiber products ( products formed on 22 or 141) with a liquid, comprising: a product carrier (413, 2 in Fig. 13) comprising a receiving portion (interior of 410) ; wherein the receiving portion of the product carrier is configured to receive a molded fiber product( 141 in Fig. 13); wherein the product carrier (413, 2) is configured to be removably affixed to the at least one holding device (410). (See Nonomura, Abstract, Figs. 10-14, paragraphs 249, 260-264,272-273, 280, 306-314, 318, 321, 342—343, and 345.)
Nonomura does not explicitly teach at least one dispenser configured to pour the coating liquid into a concave section of a molded fiber product.
Winzinger teaches applying the coating liquid into a concave section of a molded fiber product. (See Winzinger, Abstract, paragraph 45, 95, and Figs. 1-4.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have at least one dispenser configured to pour the coating liquid into a concave section of a molded fiber product with a reasonable expectation of success, because this structure would enable an inner coating to be applied to the desired surface. (See Winzinger, Abstract, paragraph 45, 95, and Figs. 1-4.)
Further regarding claim 1, Nonomura teaches the receiving portion (interior of 410) has a shape substantially similar to an external shape of the molded fiber product (products formed on 22 or 141)), wherein the molded fiber product (products formed on 22 or 141)) within the receiving portion (interior of 410) is in substantially full contact with the product carrier (413, 2), wherein the receiving portion (interior of 410) supports the molded fiber product (products formed on 22 or 141)) and stabilizes the external shape of the molded fiber product (products formed on 22 or 141)) during a liquid coating process. (See Nonomura, Abstract, Figs. 10-14, paragraphs 249, 260-262,272-273, 280, 306-314, 318, 321, 342—343, and 345.)
Nonomura teaches a dewatering apparatus, but does not explicitly teach the dewatering mold includes a spinning element.
Winzinger teaches centrifugal forces can be used to remove water from the pulp. (See Winzinger, Abstract, and paragraph 23)
Moscone is directed to a centrifuge to remove water.
Moscone teaches specifically a spinning element (rotor 12) to provide separation i.e. remove water. (See Moscone, Abstract, paragraphs 5, 8, 11, 24, 33-34, 37, 39, 41, and Figs. 1-7.)
Hammersky teaches spinning is a known method for removing water. (See Hammesky, paragraph 123.) Nonomura teaches the dewatering mold has a drainage hole. (See Nonomura, paragraph 263.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a spinning element (12), because Moscone teaches separation i.e. removal of water can be achieved by using a connection to the rotor of a centrifuge to reduce drag about the rotor and reduce friction of air resistance during centrifugation. (See Moscone, Abstract, paragraphs 5, 8, 11, 24, 33-34, 37, 39, 41, and Figs. 1-7.)
Nonomura teaches a dewatering apparatus, but does not explicitly teach the dewatering mold includes a spinning element with at least one holding device, wherein the spinning element is coupled to a motor and is configured to spin about an axis of rotation wherein the motor is configured to rotate the spinning element about the axis of rotation to remove an excess portion of the coating liquid from a surface of the molded fiber product.
Moscone teaches a spinning element (rotor 12) with at least one holding device (10), wherein the spinning element is coupled to a motor (motor) and is configured to spin about an axis of rotation wherein the motor is configured to rotate the spinning element about the axis of rotation to remove an excess portion of the coating liquid from a surface of the molded fiber product. (See Moscone, Abstract, paragraphs 5, 8, 11, 24, 33-34, 37, 39, 41, and Figs. 1-7.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a spinning element with at least one holding device, wherein the spinning element is coupled to a motor and is configured to spin about an axis of rotation wherein the motor is configured to rotate the spinning element about the axis of rotation to remove an excess portion of the coating liquid from a surface of the molded fiber product, because Moscone teaches the motor allows the rotor to be utilized. (See Moscone, Abstract, paragraphs 5, 8, 11, 24, 33-34, 37, 39, 41, and Figs. 1-7.)
Intended use language is located in the preamble of claim 1 (apparatus for coating molded fiber products with a coating liquid). A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Nonomura in view of Moscone and Winzinger is capable of the intended use and as results meets these claim limitations.
Claim 1 recites an intended use clause (i. e. the spinning element is coupled to a motor and is configured to spin about an axis of rotation wherein the motor is configured to rotate the spinning element about the axis of rotation to remove an excess portion of the coating liquid from a surface of the molded fiber product). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Nonomura in view of Moscone and Winzinger is capable of the intended use and as results meets these claim limitations.
Regarding claim 6, Nonomura teaches a coating liquid is applied to a lip of the molded fiber product. (See Nonomura, Abstract, Figs. 10-14, paragraphs 249, 260-262,272-273, 280, 306-314, 318, 321, 342—343, and 345.)
The previous rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20040013830 A1 to Nonomura et al (hereinafter Nonumura) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20070037684 A1 to Moscone, Sr et al (hereinafter Moscone) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20230287205 A1 to Hammersky et al (hereinafter Hammersky) US Pat. Pub. No. 20240200276 A1 to Winzinger et al (hereinafter Winzinger) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20140352943 A1 to Domec (hereinafter Domec) is being maintained.
Regarding claim 2, Nonomura does not teach wherein at least a portion of the product carrier is manufactured using an additive manufacturing process.
Domec is directed to a treating top surface of a gripping tool.
Domec teaches wherein at least a portion of the product carrier is manufactured using an additive manufacturing process. (See Domec, Abstract, paragraphs 64, 66.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein at least a portion of the product carrier is manufactured using an additive manufacturing process, because Domec teaches this is an art recognized equivalent method for forming a layer on a gripping tool. (See Domec, Abstract, paragraphs 64, 66.)
The previous rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20040013830 A1 to Nonomura et al (hereinafter Nonumura) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20070037684 A1 to Moscone, Sr et al (hereinafter Moscone) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20230287205 A1 to Hammersky et al (hereinafter Hammersky) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240200276 A1 to Winzinger et al (hereinafter Winzinger) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 4,418,644 to Young (hereinafter Young) is being maintained.
Regarding claim 3, Nonomura does not teach the product carrier further comprises at least one port for an air conduit and a plurality of flow channels, wherein the product carrier is coupled to a vacuum pressure system.
Young is directed to a securing a paperboard product to a surface.
Young teaches the product carrier further comprises at least one port for an air conduit and a plurality of flow channels, wherein the product carrier is coupled to a vacuum pressure system. (See Young, Abstract, col. 1, lines 1-10 col. 6, lines 25-40.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the product carrier further comprises at least one port for an air conduit and a plurality of flow channels, wherein the product carrier is coupled to a vacuum pressure system, because Young teaches this structure ensures rotation will not occur unless a product is secured to the platen. (See Young, Abstract, col. 1, lines 1-10 col. 6, lines 25-40.)
The previous rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20040013830 A1 to Nonomura et al (hereinafter Nonumura) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20070037684 A1 to Moscone, Sr et al (hereinafter Moscone) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240200276 A1 to Winzinger et al (hereinafter Winzinger) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20230287205 A1 to Hammersky et al (hereinafter Hammersky) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190202107 A1 to Vantrease (hereinafter Vantrease) is being maintained.
Regarding claim 4, Nonomura does not teach a top surface of the product carrier comprises a silicon layer.
Vantrease is directed to a delivery system.
Vantrease teaches wherein at least a portion of the product carrier is manufactured using an additive manufacturing process. (See Vantrease, Abstract, paragraph 41.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a top surface of the product carrier comprises a silicon layer, because Vantrease teaches this silicon known material to add to a gripping surface. (See Vantrease, Abstract, paragraph 41.)
The previous rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20040013830 A1 to Nonomura et al (hereinafter Nonumura) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20070037684 A1 to Moscone, Sr et al (hereinafter Moscone) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20230287205 A1 to Hammersky et al (hereinafter Hammersky) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240200276 A1 to Winzinger et al (hereinafter Winzinger) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20230331449 A1 to Graham et al (hereinafter Graham) is being maintained.
Regarding claim 5, Nonomura does not teach the holding device comprises a locking mechanism, wherein the product carrier further comprises a recess for receiving the locking mechanism
Graham is directed to securing a molded fiber product.
Graham teaches the holding device comprises a locking mechanism (2940 cap), wherein the product carrier further comprises a recess (2911 lip or ridge) for receiving the locking mechanism. (See Graham, Abstract, Figs. 2, 30-34, paragraphs 208-217.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the holding device comprises a locking mechanism, wherein the product carrier further comprises a recess for receiving the locking mechanism, because Graham teaches this would allow the locking mechanism to be secured to the pulp molded product. (See Graham, Abstract, Figs. 2, 30-34, paragraphs 208-217.)
The previous rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20040013830 A1 to Nonomura et al (hereinafter Nonumura) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20070037684 A1 to Moscone, Sr et al (hereinafter Moscone) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20230287205 A1 to Hammersky et al (hereinafter Hammersky) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20240200276 A1 to Winzinger et al (hereinafter Winzinger) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20090312169 A1 to Hyun-Jin Yang (hereinafter Yang) is being maintained.
Regarding claim 7, Nonomura does not teach the motor is coupled to a control device, wherein the motor is configured to rotate the spinning elements at a predetermined speed.
Yang is directed to a centrifuge device.
Yang teaches the motor is coupled to a control device, wherein the motor is configured to rotate the spinning elements at a predetermined speed. (See Yang, Abstract, paragraphs 14, 48, and Figs. 1-7.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the motor is coupled to a control device, wherein the motor is configured to rotate the spinning elements at a predetermined speed, because Yang teaches this would enable the speed of the rotor to be controlled. (See Yang, Abstract, paragraphs 14, 48, and Figs. 1-7.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Examiner proposed an Examiner’s Amendment on April 29, 2025 (prior to the previous Office Action), but the Amendment was not agreed to by Applicant’s Representative in the time allowed.
Claims 8-13 are considered to be allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 31, 2025 with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections of claims 8-13 have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues on the second paragraph of page 10 of the Remarks Section (submitted October 31, 2025) :
“The Office Action cites to the “interior of 410” of Fig. 13 of Nonumura for teaching a receiving portion of a product carrier. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Indicia 410 of Nonomura identifies a dewatering mold, which is not the same as the receiving portion of the product carrier of the present application.
…
Para. [00249]. The core unit is transferred between adjacent cylinder units and is treated in each tank: “ the cylinder units 316 operate synchronously in such a manner that the core unit 2 having been treated in the cleaning tank 470, the pulp slurry tank 400 or the dewatering mold 410.” Para. [0249]. Thus, the core unit moves between the cleaning tank, a pulp slurry tank, and the dewatering mold. Thus, it is impossible for the dewatering mold (410) to be a receiving portion of the product carrier, as the dewatering mold (410) is not part of the core unit, as shown in Fig. 13 of Nonomura …”
Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments as follows:
1/ Applicant’s statement: “Indicia 410 of Nonomura identifies a dewatering mold, which is not the same as the receiving portion of the product carrier of the present application.” is not considered persuasive.
In order to rebut the claim limitation of a structural claim limit are not met, Applicant must also discuss specific structure in the claim limitation which the reference(s) lack. Arguing they are not the same is not considered persuasive. Examiner considers the claim limitations to read on the structure in the reference as set forth above, as a result, a prima facie case of obviousness has been made.
2/ Applicant’s statement: “the core unit moves between the cleaning tank, a pulp slurry tank, and the dewatering mold. Thus, it is impossible for the dewatering mold (410) to be a receiving portion of the product carrier, as the dewatering mold (410) is not part of the core unit, as shown in Fig. 13 of Nonomura.” is not considered persuasive.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation for the term “comprising”, Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s reasoning. Examiner is using the following definition from Merriam-Webster dictionary for “comprising” : “ to include within a particular scope”.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a machine for coating molded fiber products… comprising: a product carrier comprising a receiving portion; wherein the receiving portion is integrally is formed on a surface of the product carrier) 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).
Applicant argues on the first paragraph of page 11 of the Remarks Section:
“ As described in the present application, the receiving portion is a part of a product carrier, in which the receiving portion includes concave sections with a shape complementary to a shape of a molded fiber product, and wherein the receiving portion is configured to receive the molded fiber product. Thus, Nonomura fails to teach ‘ a product carrier comprising a receiving portion’.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the receiving portion is a part of a product carrier, in which the receiving portion includes concave sections with a shape complementary to a shape of a molded fiber product, and wherein the receiving portion is configured to receive the molded fiber productare 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).
Applicant argues on the last paragraph of page 11 of the Remarks Section:
“ .. the specimen holder taught by Moscone is not the same thing as the product carrier of the present application. The specimen holder taught by Moscone is a holder or “bucket” containing the samples to be centrifuged ( Para. [ 0006]), which is not the same as the product carrier of the present application. Thus, Moscone fails to teach ‘ a product carrier comprising a receiving portion’.”
This argument is not considered persuasive.
In order to rebut the claim limitation of a structural claim limit are not met, Applicant must also discuss specific structure in the claim limitation which the reference(s) lack. Arguing they are not the same is not considered persuasive. Examiner considers the claim limitations to read on the structure in the reference as set forth above, as a result, a prima facie case of obviousness has been made.
Applicant argues on the first paragraph of page 12 of the Remarks Section:
“ Winzinger may teach a device and method for producing fiber containers. However, Winzinger does not teach a product carrier as in the present application. Thus, Winzinger fails to teach ‘ a product carrier comprising a receiving portion’.”
This argument is not considered persuasive.
In order to rebut the claim limitation of a structural claim limit are not met, Applicant must also discuss specific structure in the claim limitation which the reference(s) lack. Arguing the reference does not teach a structure as in the present application is not considered persuasive. The structure must be included in the claim language in order to have patentable consideration.
Examiner considers the claim limitations to read on the structure in the reference as set forth above, as a result, a prima facie case of obviousness has been made.
Applicant argues on the second paragraph of page 12 of the Remarks Section:
“ Hamersky may teach a dissolvable structure with a first and second layer.
…
Thus, Hamersky fails to teach ‘ a product carrier comprising a receiving portion’.”
This argument is not considered persuasive. Hammersky is not being relied on to teach those elements as those elements are found in a different reference.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues on the last paragraph of page 12 of the Remarks Section:
“Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that the combination of the dewatering of the heat insulating container discussed in Nonomura with the spinning element of Moscone is improper. Applicant respectfully submits that such a combination would frustrate the principle operation of Nonomura.”
Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments as follows:
"The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.").
Applicant argues on the first paragraph of page 13 of the Remarks Section:
“ Moscone is a holder or "bucket" containing the samples to be centrifuged (Para. [0006]), which is not the same as the product carrier of the present application. As such, there is no obvious way to securely place a molded fiber product on the spinning element, because the only holding device is for specimen, such as test tubes, test tube holders, or any other means that is suitable for retaining a specimen. Para. [0005]..”
In order to rebut the claim limitation of a structural claim limit are not met, Applicant must also discuss specific structure in the claim limitation which the reference(s) lack. Arguing the reference does not teach a structure as in the present application is not considered persuasive. The structure must be included in the claim language in order to have patentable consideration.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., securely place a molded fiber product on the spinning element) 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).
Applicant argues on the second paragraph and third paragraph of page 13 of the Remarks Section:
“ Moreover, there is no obvious way to incorporate the centrifuge bucket design of Moscone with the method of producing the heat-insulating container of Nonomura. Nonomura describes a plurality of different units, including core-forming units, none of which include an obvious way to incorporate a centrifuge. Additionally, since Nonomura teaches dewatering the fiber layer by pressing under a prescribed pressure, it would not be obvious to add a centrifuge to dewater the container of Nonomura.”
"The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.").
Examiner submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art of water removal would be reasonably expected to combine these structure to optimize the object of Nonumura without frustrating the principle of Nonomura.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717