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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
FIG. 1: element 2
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The use of the terms Oak Ridge National Laboratory®, ThorLabs®, JEOL®, and Oxford® PlasmaLab™, which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 1-5 and 10-11 be found allowable, claims 13-20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 2-3, 5, 11, 14-15, 18, and 20 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.
The term “about” in claims 2-3 and 14-15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “about 0.1 μm and about 5 μm” to mean “.
The term “about” in claims 5 and 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “about 50 nm and about 1 μm” to mean “.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 11 and 20 recite the broad recitation “at least 100,000 phase gratings”, and each claim also recites “preferably at least 500,000 phase gratings and most preferably at least 1,000,000 phase gratings” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “at least 100,000 phase gratings, preferably at least 500,000 phase gratings and most preferably at least 1,000,000 phase gratings” to mean “at least 100,000 phase gratings.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10, 13-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarenac et al. ("Structured neutron waves," 2019), hereinafter Sarenac, in view of Luski et al. (“Vortex beams of atoms and molecules,” 2021), hereinafter Luski.
Regarding claim 1, Sarenac discloses a structured wave generator (abstract) comprising:
a neutron source generating a neutron beam (FIG. 2a) having a propagation axis and a lateral coherence length extending perpendicular to the propagation axis (page 2, paragraph beginning “To analyze the OAM…”, transverse coherence length); and
a substrate, the substrate having an array of phase gratings distributed on the substrate for receiving the neutron beam (page 2, first paragraph), wherein when the neutron beam interacts with the array of phase gratings, at least a portion of the neutron beam diffracts (page 2, first paragraph) to form a structured wave (page 5, last paragraph).
Sarenac fails to disclose that the substrate is spaced-apart from the neutron source, the phase gratings having a body made of a grating material and having a holographic profile, and the holographic profile having an in-plane dimension being equal or smaller than the lateral coherence length of the neutron beam.
However, Luski discloses that the substrate (FIG. 2, grating holder) is spaced-apart from the beam source (FIG. 2, Even-Lavie valve), the phase gratings having a body made of a grating material and having a holographic profile (page 2, column 3, paragraph beginning “For our gratings…”), and the holographic profile having an in-plane dimension (page 2, column 3, paragraph beginning “For our gratings…”, 600 nm) being equal or smaller than the lateral coherence length of the beam (page 2, column 3, paragraph 1, 840 nm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Sarenac to include that the substrate is spaced-apart from the neutron source, the phase gratings having a body made of a grating material and having a holographic profile, and the holographic profile having an in-plane dimension being equal or smaller than the lateral coherence length of the neutron beam, based on the teachings of Luski that this in-plane dimension of the holographic profile reduces or eliminates incoherent blurring in the far field (Luski, page 2, column 3, paragraph beginning “For our gratings…”).
Regarding claim 2, Sarenac in view of Luski as applied to claim 1 discloses the structured wave generator of claim 1.
In addition, Luski discloses that the in-plane dimension of the holographic profile ranges between about 0.1 μm and about 5 μm (page 2, column 3, paragraph beginning “For our gratings…”, 600 nm = 0.6 μm).
Optimizing the holographic profile dimensions is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Luski teaches the in-plane dimension of the holographic profile as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the dimensions of the holographic profile and identifies said dimensions as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the in-plane dimension of the holographic profile to meet the claimed dimensions since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 3, Sarenac in view of Luski as applied to claim 1 discloses the structured wave generator of claim 1.
In addition, Luski discloses that the lateral coherence length of the beam ranges between about 0.1 μm and about 5 μm (page 2, column 3, paragraph 1, 840 nm = 0.84 μm).
Optimizing the lateral coherence length of a beam is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Luski teaches the lateral coherence length of the beam as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the coherence length and identifies said coherence length as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the lateral coherence length of the beam to meet the claimed coherence length since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 6, Sarenac in view of Luski as applied to claim 1 discloses the structured wave generator of claim 1.
In addition, Luski discloses that the propagation axis is perpendicular to the substrate (FIG. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Sarenac in view of Luski to include that the propagation axis is perpendicular to the substrate, based on the additional teachings of Luski that this arrangement prevents incoherent blurring and coherent interference between beams (Luski, page 2, column 3, paragraph beginning “For our gratings…”).
Regarding claim 7, Sarenac in view of Luski as applied to claim 1 discloses the structured wave generator of claim 1.
In addition, Sarenac discloses that the neutron beam interacting with the array of phase gratings includes the neutron beam propagating through the array of phase gratings (page 2, first paragraph, lines 2-3).
Regarding claim 8, Sarenac in view of Luski as applied to claim 1 discloses the structured wave generator of claim 1.
In addition, Sarenac discloses that the structured wave is at least one of an orbital angular momentum beam, a Bessel beam and an Airy beam (page 1, Introduction, first paragraph, line 8).
Regarding claim 10, Sarenac in view of Luski as applied to claim 1 discloses the structured wave generator of claim 1.
In addition, Sarenac discloses that the substrate and array of phase gratings are made of a silicon-based material (page 4, paragraph following equation 3).
Regarding claim 13, Sarenac discloses a device for diffracting (page 2, paragraph 1) a neutron beam into a structured wave (abstract), the neutron beam having a propagating axis and a lateral coherence length extending perpendicular to the propagation axis (page 2, paragraph beginning “To analyze the OAM…”, transverse coherence length), the device comprising: a substrate having an array of phase gratings distributed on the substrate for receiving the neutron beam (page 2, first paragraph), wherein when the neutron beam interacts with the array of phase gratings, at least a portion of the neutron beam diffracts (page 2, first paragraph) to form the structured wave (page 5, last paragraph).
Sarenac fails to disclose the phase gratings having a body made of a grating material and having a holographic profile, the holographic profile having an in-plane dimension being equal or smaller than the lateral coherence length of the neutron beam.
However, Luski discloses the phase gratings having a body made of a grating material and having a holographic profile (page 2, column 3, paragraph beginning “For our gratings…”), the holographic profile having an in-plane dimension (page 2, column 3, paragraph beginning “For our gratings…”, 600 nm) being equal or smaller than the lateral coherence length of the beam (page 2, column 3, paragraph 1, 840 nm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Sarenac to include the phase gratings having a body made of a grating material and having a holographic profile, the holographic profile having an in-plane dimension being equal or smaller than the lateral coherence length of the neutron beam, based on the teachings of Luski that this in-plane dimension of the holographic profile reduces or eliminates incoherent blurring in the far field (Luski, page 2, column 3, paragraph beginning “For our gratings…”).
Regarding claim 14, Sarenac in view of Luski as applied to claim 13 discloses the device of claim 13.
In addition, Luski discloses that the in-plane dimension of the holographic profile ranges between about 0.1 μm and about 5 μm(page 2, column 3, paragraph beginning “For our gratings…”, 600 nm = 0.6 μm).
Optimizing the holographic profile dimensions is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Luski teaches the in-plane dimension of the holographic profile as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the dimensions of the holographic profile and identifies said dimensions as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the in-plane dimension of the holographic profile to meet the claimed dimensions since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 15, Sarenac in view of Luski as applied to claim 13 discloses the device of claim 13.
In addition, Luski discloses that the lateral coherence length of the beam ranges between about 0.1 μm and about 5 μm(page 2, column 3, paragraph 1, 840 nm = 0.84 μm).
Optimizing the lateral coherence length of a beam is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Luski teaches the lateral coherence length of the beam as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the coherence length and identifies said coherence length as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the lateral coherence length of the beam to meet the claimed coherence length since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 19, Sarenac in view of Luski as applied to claim 13 discloses the device of claim 13.
In addition, Sarenac discloses that the substrate and array of phase gratings are made of a silicon-based material (page 4, paragraph following equation 3).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarenac in view of Luski as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fuetterer (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0126029 A1), hereinafter Fuetterer.
Regarding claim 9, Sarenac in view of Luski as applied to claim 1 discloses the structured wave generator of claim 1.
Sarenac in view of Luski fails to disclose that the structured wave has a zero order beam, and higher-order order beams propagating at a non-zero angle relative to the propagation axis of the neutron beam.
However, Fuetterer discloses that the structured wave has a zero order beam, and higher-order order beams propagating at a non-zero angle relative to the propagation axis of the neutron beam (paragraph 0025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Sarenac in view of Luski to include that the structured wave has a zero order beam, and higher-order order beams propagating at a non-zero angle relative to the propagation axis of the neutron beam, based on the teachings of Fuetterer that this ensures the achievement of a desired depth apodization of the refractive index distribution for improved resolution and minimized distortions (Fuetterer, paragraph 0188).
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarenac in view of Luski as respectively applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Sarrant-Foresti et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0255168 A1), hereinafter Sarrant-Foresti.
Regarding claim 11, Sarenac in view of Luski as applied to claim 1 discloses the structured wave generator of claim 1.
Sarenac in view of Luski fails to disclose that the array of phase gratings includes at least 100,000 phase gratings, preferably at least 500,000 phase gratings and most preferably at least 1,000,000 phase gratings.
However, Sarrant-Foresti discloses that the array of phase gratings includes at least 100,000 phase gratings, preferably at least 500,000 phase gratings and most preferably at least 1,000,000 phase gratings (paragraph 0020).
Optimizing the number of phase gratings is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Sarrant-Foresti teaches the number of phase gratings as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the number of phase gratings and identifies said number of phase gratings as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the number of phase gratings to meet the claimed number since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 20, Sarenac in view of Luski as applied to claim 13 discloses the device of claim 13.
Sarenac in view of Luski fails to disclose that the array of phase gratings includes at least 100,000 phase gratings, preferably at least 500,000 phase gratings and most preferably at least 1,000,000 phase gratings.
However, Sarrant-Foresti discloses that the array of phase gratings includes at least 100,000 phase gratings, preferably at least 500,000 phase gratings and most preferably at least 1,000,000 phase gratings (paragraph 0020).
Optimizing the number of phase gratings is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Sarrant-Foresti teaches the number of phase gratings as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the number of phase gratings and identifies said number of phase gratings as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the number of phase gratings to meet the claimed number since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarenac in view of Luski as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pushin et al. (“Far-field interference of a neutron white beam and the applications to noninvasive phase-contrast imaging,” 2017), hereinafter Pushin.
Regarding claim 12, Sarenac in view of Luski as applied to claim 1 discloses the structured wave generator of claim 1.
Sarenac in view of Luski fails to disclose a neutron detector positioned in far field relative to the array of phase gratings.
However, Pushin discloses a neutron detector positioned in far field relative to the array of phase gratings (page 2, column 1, paragraph 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Sarenac in view of Luski to include a neutron detector positioned in far field relative to the array of phase gratings, based on the teachings of Pushin that this arrangement allows for wider tolerances in terms of grating dimensions and alignments (Pushin, page 2, column 1, paragraph 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 4 is allowable because the prior art of record fails to teach “the holographic profile is defined by an equation equivalent to the following equation:
F
x
,
y
=
A
s
i
g
n
(
sin
2
π
p
x
+
f
x
,
y
)
” in combination with the additional limitations of claim 4.
The closest prior art of record, Luski, teaches the holographic profile of claim 1.
However, Luski fails to teach the claimed equation defining the holographic profile. Therefore, the prior art of record fails to teach “the holographic profile is defined by an equation equivalent to the following equation:
F
x
,
y
=
A
s
i
g
n
(
sin
2
π
p
x
+
f
x
,
y
)
” as currently claimed.
Claim 5 is allowable because of its dependence on claim 4.
Claim 16 is allowable because the prior art of record fails to teach “the holographic profile is defined by an equation equivalent to the following equation:
F
x
,
y
=
A
s
i
g
n
(
sin
2
π
p
x
+
f
x
,
y
)
” in combination with the additional limitations of claim 16.
The closest prior art of record, Luski, teaches the holographic profile of claim 1.
However, Luski fails to teach the claimed equation defining the holographic profile. Therefore, the prior art of record fails to teach “the holographic profile is defined by an equation equivalent to the following equation:
F
x
,
y
=
A
s
i
g
n
(
sin
2
π
p
x
+
f
x
,
y
)
” as currently claimed.
Claims 17-18 are allowable because of their dependence on claim 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
McMorran et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0252228 A1), hereinafter McMorran, teaches a groove height ranging between 50 nm and 1 μm.
Rauch et al. (“Measurement and characterization of the three-dimensional coherence function in neutron interferometry”, 1996), hereinafter Rauch, teaches a lateral coherence length of a neutron beam ranging between 0.1 μm and 5 μm.
Osamu et al. (JP Patent No. 2010015874 A), hereinafter Osamu (English machine translation provided), teaches an array of phase gratings including at least 100,000 phase gratings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881