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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed application 18/978,306 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed August 13th, 2026 has been entered. Claim 21 has been amended. Claims 21-40 remain pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 13th, 2026.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on August 12th, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of pending reference application U.S. Patent 12,186,781 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.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.
Claims 21, 26, 31 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756).
Regarding claim 21, Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) teaches a system for use in directing a sorting operation (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-4), the system comprising:
a server comprising a memory, a processor, and a receptacle assignment engine (see Dugat (US 2015/0144536) incorp. by reference, Paragraph 0099 lines 1-13, Paragraph 0155 lines 1-15);
a chamber bank (Fig. 13B bank of #1340) for use in a sorting operation comprising a plurality of chambers (Fig. 13B #1340) configured for receiving a receptacle therein (Fig. 13B #1326 received in each #1340),
wherein each chamber is defined by a floor (Fig. 14A floor of #1340a), a left wall (Fig. 14B left #1342), a right wall (Fig. 14B right #1342), and a rear wall (Fig. 14B rear wall of #1340a) that together define a receiving space for a receptacle (Fig. 14A #1340a, left and right #1342 receive #1326),
wherein top ends of the left wall, the right wall, and the rear wall (Fig. 14A see top ends of left #1342, right #1342, and rear wall of #1340a) define an uncovered top opening of the chamber for receiving articles to be sorted therethrough as the articles are deposited into the receptacle (Fig. 14A article received through top ends of left #1342, right #1342, and rear wall of #1340a),
wherein the rear wall is perpendicular to each of the left wall and the right wall (Fig. 14B rear wall of #1340a perpendicular to left #1342 and right #1342),
wherein the rear wall extends above a top rim of the receptacle (Fig. 14A rear wall of #1340a extends above top rim of #1326);
wherein front facing free ends of the left wall, the right wall, and the floor (Fig. 14A front facing free ends of left #1342, right #1342, and floor of #1340a) define an uncovered front opening of the chamber for receiving the receptacle therethrough (Fig. 14A front facing free ends of left #1342, right #1342, and floor of #1340a form uncovered front opening for receiving #1326 therethrough),
wherein the floor of the chamber is defined by a base surface of the chamber bank (Fig. 14A floor of #1340a forms base surface of #1340);
wherein the system is configured to direct a transport device to transport and deposit an article to be sorted into the receptacle through the uncovered top opening of the chamber (Paragraph 0044 lines 1-14, Paragraph 0087 lines 8-14).
Regarding claim 26, Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the transport device comprises an automated conveyor system (Paragraph 0044 lines 1-14).
Regarding claim 31, Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the chamber bank further comprises a ramp (Fig. 14A #1328) extending towards a top edge of the rear wall of the chamber (Fig. 14B see #1328 extending towards a top edge of rear wall of #1340a).
Regarding claim 40, Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the chamber bank comprises casters (Fig. 4C #325a, b) to render the chamber bank mobile (Paragraph 0047 lines 1-8).
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 22-23 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) in view of Eger (US 10016789).
Regarding claim 22, Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) lacks teaching the system of claim 21, wherein the system is further configured to identify that a receptacle present in the chamber bank is full.
Eger (US 10016789) teaches a system for use in directing a sorting operation (Col. 1 lines 20-30), wherein the system is further configured to identify that a receptacle present in the chamber bank is full (Col. 6 lines 11-14).
Eger (US 10016789) explains that the system is able to detect when the bin is substantially full or at capacity (Col. 6 lines 1--14), therefore accurately controlling the filling of bins without causing rejects (Col. 6 lines 44-47). Eger (US 10016789) additionally explains that the system can signal that the first bin is full, causing the first bin to be automatically exchanged (Col. 8 lines 3-6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) to include wherein the system is further configured to identify that a receptacle present in the chamber bank is full as taught by Eger (US 10016789) in order to accurately control the filling of receptacles without causing articles to be rejected, and in order to automatically exchange the full receptacle.
Regarding claim 23, Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) lacks teaching the system of claim 21, wherein the system is further configured to direct replacement of the receptacle with a replacement receptacle.
Eger (US 10016789) teaches a system for use in directing a sorting operation (Col. 1 lines 20-30), wherein the system is further configured to direct replacement of the receptacle with a replacement receptacle (Col. 8 lines 3-6).
Eger (US 10016789) explains that the system is able to detect when the bin is substantially full or at capacity (Col. 6 lines 1--14), therefore accurately controlling the filling of bins without causing rejects (Col. 6 lines 44-47). Eger (US 10016789) additionally explains that the system can signal that the first bin is full, causing the first bin to be automatically exchanged (Col. 8 lines 3-6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) to include wherein the system is further configured to direct replacement of the receptacle with a replacement receptacle as taught by Eger (US 10016789) in order to automatically exchange the full receptacle.
Regarding claim 35, Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) lacks teaching the system of claim 21, further comprising a sensor for detecting a fill level of the receptacle.
Eger (US 10016789) teaches a system for use in directing a sorting operation (Col. 1 lines 20-30), further comprising a sensor (Fig. 2 #214, 216) for detecting a fill level of the receptacle (Col. 6 lines 11-17).
Eger (US 10016789) explains that by measuring the volume of the articles to be deposited into a bin, the system is able to determine if the articles will fit in the bin or not based on the remaining capacity in each of the bins determined by the sensors (Col. 6 line 61-Col. 7 line 10), therefore accurately controlling the filling of bins without causing rejects (Col. 6 lines 44-47).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) to include a sensor for detecting a fill level of the receptacle as taught by Eger (US 10016789) in order to accurately control the filling of receptacles without causing articles to be rejected.
Claims 24, 32 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) in view of Tilekar et al. (US 11020770).
Regarding claim 24, Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) lacks teaching the system of claim 21, wherein the system is further configured to direct a changeout of the chamber bank with a replacement chamber bank containing one or more empty receptacles.
Tilekar et al. (US 11020770) teaches a system for use in directing a sorting operation (Col. 3 lines 4-7) wherein the system is further configured to direct a changeout of the chamber bank (Fig. 10 #1020) with a replacement chamber bank containing one or more empty receptacles (Col. 15 lines 39-52).
Tilekar et al. (US 11020770) explains that an operator may use a handle to pull and/or push the movable cart (chamber bank) into and out of position for filling and/or replacing flexible containers (Col. 15 lines 39-52).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) to include wherein the system is further configured to direct a changeout of the chamber bank with a replacement chamber bank containing one or more empty receptacles as taught by Tilekar et al. (US 11020770) in order to replace the full receptacles with empty receptacles.
Regarding claim 32, Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) lacks teaching the system of claim 31, wherein the ramp is spaced apart from a top edge of the rear wall of the chamber.
Tilekar et al. (US 11020770) teaches a system for use in directing a sorting operation (Col. 3 lines 4-7) wherein the ramp (Fig. 13 #1340) is spaced apart from a top edge of the rear wall of the chamber (Fig. 13 #1340 spaced apart from top edge of rear wall of #1360).
Tilekar et al. (US 11020770) explains that an operator may use a handle to pull and/or push the movable cart (chamber bank) into and out of position for filling and/or replacing flexible containers (Col. 15 lines 39-52), and explains that the chute assembly may be in an elevated position when replacing the movable cart (Col. 16 lines 28-44).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) to wherein the ramp is spaced apart from a top edge of the rear wall of the chamber as taught by Tilekar et al. (US 11020770) in order to replace the chamber bank when the receptacles are filled.
Regarding claim 38, Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) lacks teaching the system of claim 21, further comprising a ridge provided in a front portion of the chamber for preventing the receptacle from sliding out of the chamber, the ridge extending across at least a portion of a span between the left and right walls of the chamber.
Tilekar et al. (US 11020770) teaches a system for use in directing a sorting operation (Col. 1 lines 6-16), further comprising a ridge (Fig. 13 #1380) provided in a front portion of the chamber (Fig. 13 #1380 in front potion of frame of #1300) for preventing the receptacle from sliding out of the chamber (Fig. 13 #1380 prevents #1360 from sliding out of frame of #1300), the ridge extending across at least a portion of a span between the left and right walls of the chamber (Fig. 13 #1380 extending across portion of span between left and right walls of frame of #1300).
Tilekar et al. (US 11020770) explains that a backstop (ridge) is configured to stop the motion of the movable cart (Col. 18 lines 50-62).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) to include a ridge provided in a front portion of the chamber for preventing the receptacle from sliding out of the chamber, the ridge extending across at least a portion of a span between the left and right walls of the chamber as taught by Tilekar et al. (US 11020770) in order to stop the motion of the receptacle in the chamber.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) in view of Prydtz (US 5325972).
Regarding claim 25, Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) lacks teaching the system of claim 21, wherein the system is further configured to direct replacement of an overfilled receptacle.
Prydtz (US 5325972) teaches a system for use in directing a sorting operation (Col. 1 lines 6-13), wherein the system is further configured to direct replacement of an overfilled receptacle (Col. 3 lines 54-61).
Prydtz (US 5325972) explains that an alarm signal indicating an overfilling is fed or supplied to the unloading master (Col. 3 lines 54-61).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) to include wherein the system is further configured to direct replacement of an overfilled receptacle as taught by Prydtz (US 5325972) in order to alert an operator that an overfilling has occurred and prevent additional items from being deposited in the overfilled receptacle.
Claims 27, 30 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) in view of Muttathil et al. (US 2019/0218033).
Regarding claim 27, Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) lacks teaching the system of claim 21, wherein the transport device comprises a computer-controlled vehicle.
Muttathil et al. (US 2019/0218033) teaches a system for use in directing a sorting operation (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-7), wherein the transport device (Fig. 3 #120) comprises a computer-controlled vehicle (Paragraph 0034 lines 5-6).
Muttathil et al. (US 2019/0218033) explains that the items are delivered to storage locations by a plurality of automated vehicles (Paragraph 0034 lines 5-6), and further explains that a plurality of items may be loaded onto each vehicle (Paragraph 0032 lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) to include wherein the transport device comprises a computer-controlled vehicle as taught by Muttathil et al. (US 2019/0218033) in order to deliver a plurality of items automatically to receptacles.
Regarding claim 30, Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) lacks teaching the system of claim 21, wherein the transport device traverses a track arrangement.
Muttathil et al. (US 2019/0218033) teaches a system for use in directing a sorting operation (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-7), wherein the transport device (Fig. 3 #120) traverses a track arrangement (Paragraph 0029 lines 7-10).
Muttathil et al. (US 2019/0218033) explains that the items are delivered to storage locations by a plurality of automated vehicles (Paragraph 0034 lines 5-6), and further explains that a plurality of items may be loaded onto each vehicle (Paragraph 0032 lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) to include wherein the transport device traverses a track arrangement as taught by Muttathil et al. (US 2019/0218033) in order to deliver a plurality of items automatically to receptacles.
Regarding claim 33, Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) lacks teaching the system of claim 21, further comprising a gate extending across an opening at a front region of the chamber.
Muttathil et al. (US 2019/0218033) teaches a system for use in directing a sorting operation (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-7), further comprising a gate (Fig. 14 #220) extending across an opening at a front region of the chamber (Figs. 13-14 #220 extending across an opening at front region of #50). Muttathil et al. (US 2019/0218033) explains that the door blocks access to the storage location (Paragraph 0053 lines 1-2), and explains that the door limits potential injury that could occur if an operator reaches into the aisle where delivery mechanisms move around to delivery items to storage locations (Paragraph 0064 lines 1-8).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) to include a gate extending across an opening at a front region of the chamber as taught by Muttathil et al. (US 2019/0218033) in order to block access to the chamber and prevent potential injury that could occur.
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) in view of Futch et al. (US 2019/0218035).
Regarding claim 28, Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) lacks teaching the system of claim 21, wherein the transport device traverses a platform.
Futch et al. (US 2019/0218035) teaches a system for use in directing a sorting operation (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-5), wherein the transport device (Fig. 5 #18) traverses a platform (Fig. 5 #12, 48).
Futch et al. (US 2019/0218035) explains that the platform assembly may be capable of linking to other platform assemblies to create any configuration for the arrangement of the platforms in a modular and scalable manner to change the functional capacity, design, or capability of the sortation system (Paragraph 0043 lines 9-23).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) to include wherein the transport device traverses a platform as taught by Futch et al. (US 2019/0218035) in order to change the functional capacity, design, or capability of the system.
Regarding claim 29, Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) lacks teaching the system of claim 21, wherein the transport device traverses a floor area.
Futch et al. (US 2019/0218035) teaches a system for use in directing a sorting operation (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-5), wherein the transport device (Fig. 5 #18) traverses a floor area (Paragraph 0050 lines 7-15).
Futch et al. (US 2019/0218035) explains that the platform assembly includes multiple levels, including an elevated level above a lower level, wherein the lower level may be the floor (Paragraph 0050 lines 7-15). Futch et al. (US 2019/0218035) further explains that the platform assembly may be capable of linking to other platform assemblies to create any configuration for the arrangement of the platforms in a modular and scalable manner to change the functional capacity, design, or capability of the sortation system (Paragraph 0043 lines 9-23).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) to include wherein the transport device traverses a floor area as taught by Futch et al. (US 2019/0218035) in order to change the functional capacity, design, or capability of the system with multiple levels.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) in view of Muttathil et al. (US 2019/0218033) and further in view of Collins (US 5222607).
Regarding claim 34, Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) lacks teaching the system of claim 33, further comprising a magnetic latch for securing the gate.
Collins (US 5222607) teaches a system for use in storing operation (Col. 1 lines 6-3), further comprising a magnetic latch (Fig. 4 #56) for securing the gate (Fig. 4 #32, Col. 4 lines 5-19). Collins (US 5222607) explains that the magnetic latch will releasably latch the gate in the closed position, so that the gate will not inadvertently or unexpectedly open, and will readily release the gate when it is read to be opened (Col. 4 lines 12-19).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) to include a magnetic latch for securing the gate as taught by Collins (US 5222607) in order to prevent the gate from inadvertently or unexpectedly opening, and readily release the gate when it is ready to be opened.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) in view of Futch et al. (US 2021/0291233).
Regarding claim 39, Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) lacks teaching the system of claim 21, wherein the system is further configured to direct an automated device to transport a full receptacle to a location of further processing.
Futch et al. (US 2021/0291233) teaches a system for use in directing a sorting operation (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-3), wherein the system is further configured to direct an automated device (Fig. 7 #265, Paragraph 0100 lines 1-12) to transport a full receptacle to a location of further processing (Fig. 7 #270, Paragraph 0099 lines 1-14).
Futch et al. (US 2021/0291233) explains that a removal device is configured to relocate the destination container to a processing location for further processing, including but not limited to packaging and value-added services such as labeling, gift wrapping, assembly, and the like (Paragraph 0099 lines 1-14).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugat et al. (US 2017/0057756) to include wherein the system is further configured to direct an automated device to transport a full receptacle to a location of further processing as taught by Futch et al. (US 2021/0291233) in order to further process the articles within the receptacle, such as by labeling, gift wrapping, or assembly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 36-37 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 36 recites “wherein the system is configured to assign a first number of articles occupying a first volume to be sorted into the receptacle such that the first number of articles stack up to extend above a top rim of the receptacle to thereby overfill the receptacle when all of the first number of articles are deposited thereinto”, wherein this limitation, in combination with the remaining limitations recited in claim 21, was not seen in the searched prior art. The prior art typically tried to keep the volume of the articles to not overfill the receptacle, as overfilling caused problems such as jamming or spilling within the systems.
Claim 37 would be allowed as it is dependent upon claim 36.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 13th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Dugat et al. fails to teach or render obvious the claimed feature of “wherein the rear wall extends above a top rim of the receptacle” recited in independent claim 21, the Examiner would like to clarify that bin platform #1340a taught by Dugat includes both the lower, horizontal floor surface as indicated in Fig. 14B as well as the rear, vertical wall surface as indicated in Fig. 14A. The rear wall portion of #1340a in Dugat extends above a top rim of the receptacle and below the bottom end of the offramp #1328, which is shown in Fig. 14A. The Examiner would also like to clarify that the guides #1342 are positioned along the sides of the offramp #1328 as well as the platform #1340a, and the guides #1342 form a left and right wall of a chamber for receiving the receptacle #326. The left and right guides #1342 and the lower and rear portions of the bin platform #1340a clearly form a chamber to define a receiving space for the receptacle #326.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Dugat et al. fails to teach the claimed “uncovered top opening of the chamber for receiving articles to be sorted therethrough as the articles are deposited into the receptacle”, the Examiner would like to clarify that there is no structure or mechanism in Dugat that covers the top opening of the chamber formed by the left and right wall (#1342) and the rear wall (#1340a), such that the ramps #1328 may guide articles directly into the uncovered top opening of the chamber as the articles are deposited into the receptacle.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Dugat et al. fails to teach the claimed “transport device to transport and deposit an article to be sorted into the receptacle through the uncovered top opening of the chamber”, the Examiner would like to clarify that the conveyor diverts objects onto the offramp (#1328), where objects travel through an uncovered top opening of the chamber formed by the left and right wall (#1342) and the rear wall (#1340a).
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Dugat et al. fails to teach the claimed “chamber bank…comprising a plurality of chambers configured for receiving a receptacle there”, the Examiner would like to clarify that configuration shown in Fig. 13A of Dugat includes multiple discrete chambers, each defined by its own floor, left wall, right wall, and rear wall, which form an array of chambers each configured for receiving a receptacle therein.
In response to applicant's argument that the rear wall of Dugat et al. does not retain articles stacked above a bin’s rim, 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. The rear wall of Dugat is capable of retaining articles stacked above a bins rim. Additionally, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the rear wall configured to contain articles that are intentionally overfilled above the rim, preventing them from falling out during the overfilling process) 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).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Molly K Devine whose telephone number is (571)270-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/MOLLY K DEVINE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3653
