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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/23/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed 12/23/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-2 and 23-24 are amended.
Claims 1-6 and 18-33 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/23/2025, with respect to Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant appears to argue that Lee, Li, and Korpet do not teach “wherein the transmitter and dual-polarized receiver are configured to transmit and receive during respective alternating periods of time.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that Lee uses monopulse radar ([0004]), which involves alternating between transmitting a pulse and listening/receiving an echo of the pulse. Additionally, Li teaches using pulses with duty cycles and inter-pulse intervals ([0068]), and Korpet teaches using Pulsed Continuous Wave ([0009]).
Applicant appears to argue that Lee, Li, and Korpet do not teach “wherein the dual-polarized receiver is configured to determine the polarization of the at least one of the interfering radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system during at least one period of time when the transmitter is not transmitting.” Specifically, Applicant appears to argue that Li discloses the use of listen-before-talk to measure the RF environment, but the measurements are “used by the transmitter (and not the receiver) to avoid interference” (Remarks, pgs. 15-16).
In response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness 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). Examiner asserts that Lee teaches using “selected” polarizations to process received signals ([0001]; [0007]). However, Lee does not adaptively select the polarizations, as required by Claims 1 and 23, and instead uses preselected polarizations ([0007]). Li teaches that a receiver of a radar system can listen to an RF environment, during a period when a transmitter of the radar system is not transmitting, and determine characteristics of signals in the environment (such as polarity) that may interfere with the radar system (Lee [0214-0215]). Examiner asserts that the combined teachings of Lee and Li would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that adaptively determining and selecting polarizations based on the RF environment, as taught by Li, could be used in a system such as Lee’s, to process received signals. Rather than relying on fixed, preselected polarizations, adaptively selecting polarizations based on the RF environment would further improve interference mitigation and target detection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C.
102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the
statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a
new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection,
would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness
rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the
claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the
differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the
claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in
which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 23-24, and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 102088426 B1) in view of Korpet (US 2005/0078739) and Li (US 2023/0184883).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches:
A radar sensing system comprising:
a transmitter configured to transmit radio signals ([0035]: “transmitter 110”);
a dual-polarized receiver ([0035]: “dual polarization radar 100”; “receiver 130”) configured to receive radio signals of two polarizations that include (i) desired radio signals comprising the transmitted radio signals transmitted by the transmitter and reflected from objects in an environment ([0036]: “transmitted radar signal may be reflected by the target”), and (ii) other radio signals that include interfering radio signals transmitted by at least one other radar sensing system ([0039]: “clutter signals and interference signals”; [0068]);
wherein the transmitter and dual-polarized receiver are configured to transmit and receive during respective alternating periods of time ([0004]: “monopulse radar”; Examiner note: monopulse radar involves alternating transmitting and receiving periods);
wherein the dual-polarized receiver is configured to process the received radio signals based upon selected polarizations … ([0001]: “to polarization diversification and spacetime adaptive processing that apply weights considering the polarization dependence of the target to the dual-polarization radar signal.”; [0007]);
wherein the dual-polarized receiver is configured to process the received radio signals of both polarizations and to segregate the desired radio signals from the interfering radio signals using a combination of spatial … and polarization differences between the desired radio signals and the interfering radio signals from other radar systems ([0001]; [0004]: “the clutter component is removed or avoided in the monopulse radar using dual polarization.”; [0006]: “applying polarization diversification using dual polarization and space-time adaptive processing method in a dual-polarization radar.”; [0007]: “spatial signal processing and temporal signal processing”; [0040-0046]).
Lee does not explicitly teach – but Li teaches:
… wherein the dual-polarized receiver is configured to select the polarizations based upon a determined polarization of at least one of the radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system (Li [0009]: “radar reception interference information for use in processing signals received by the first radar system”; “different polarization types of the radar component of the second radar system”; [0214]: “polarity”), wherein the dual-polarized receiver is configured to determine the polarization of the at least one of the interfering radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system during at least one period of time when the transmitter is not transmitting ([0214]: “listen-before-talk”; [0215]: “This trigger signal indicates to bistatic radar receivers that the receiver should monitor received RF signals during a listen-before-reply (LBR) interval 730 to measure the RF environment and particularly the reception of RF signals that would interfere with processing of received bistatic radar signals”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee and select polarizations based upon a determined polarization of at least one of the radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system, and determine the polarization of the at least one of the radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system during a period of time when the transmitter is not transmitting, as taught by Li. Adaptively determining and selecting polarizations based on the RF environment would be beneficial for improving interference mitigation and target detection.
Lee does not explicitly teach – but Korpet teaches:
…using a combination of spatial, spectral, and polarization differences… (Korpet [0008]; [0026]: “performing first individual antijamming processings by polarimetric filtering”; [0027]: “a second general antijamming processing by spatial filtering”; [0035]: “additional antijamming processings by temporal or spectral filtering are performed”; [0055-0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee and segregate targets from interference using spectral difference in addition to spatial and polarization differences, as taught by Korpet. Using spectral differences would improve interference segregation by enabling the system to segregate signals based on frequency characteristics, and modifying the system of Lee to perform spectral segregation involves combing known methods to achieve a predictable result.
Regarding Claim 2, Lee teaches: wherein the dual-polarized receiver is configured to segregate received signals by direction of arrival and adapted to perform said segregation by polarization differences separately for each direction of arrival, such that at least one of the radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system is segregated based at least in part on its direction of arrival ([0046]; [0067]: “polarization diversification”; “high accuracy angle Estimation”; [0068]: “Thereafter, the radar signal processor 150 may remove the clutter signal component or jammer signal component from the STAP stage.”; [0069]; [0077]), and wherein the spatial difference between the desired radio signals and the interfering radio signals is defined at least in part by an angle between the objects reflecting the transmitted radio signals and the interfering radio signals ([0067-0069]: Lee teaches using “high accuracy angle estimation” to determine the location of the target and the clutter/jammer signal).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee does not explicitly teach – but Korpet teaches: wherein the dual-polarized receiver is configured to separate received signals into spectral components, and further configured to perform the segregation by polarization differences separately for each spectral component (Korpet [0035]; [0055-58]). It would have been obvious to modify Lee and segregate targets from interference using spectral differences and polarization differences, as taught by Korpet, which would improve interference segregation and would involves combing known elements to achieve a predictable result.
Regarding Claim 5, Lee does not explicitly teach – but Korpet teaches: wherein the dual-polarized receiver is configured to separate received signals into spectral components and further into directions of arrival for each spectral component and configured to apply the segregation by polarization differences separately for each combination of a spectral component and a direction of arrival such that at least one of the radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system is segregated based at least in part on its direction of arrival and polarization differences (Korpet [0026-0027]; [0035]; [0055-58]). It would have been obvious to modify Lee and segregate targets from interference using spectral differences and direction of arrival differences such that at least one of the radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system is segregated based at least in part on its direction of arrival and polarization differences, as taught by Korpet, which would improve interference segregation and would involves combing known elements to achieve a predictable result.
Regarding Claim 6, Lee teaches: the transmitter and the dual-polarized receiver ([0035]).
Lee does not explicitly teach – but Li teaches: wherein the transmitter is configured for installation and use on a vehicle, and wherein the … receiver is configured for installation and use on the vehicle (Li [0214]: “vehicle radar systems”). It would have been obvious to modify Lee and install and use the transmitter and receiver on a vehicle, as taught by Li, which would improve performance of the vehicle and would involve applying the known radar system to a known field of use to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 23, Lee teaches radar sensing system comprising:
a … transmitter configured to transmit radio signals ([0035]);
a … dual-polarized receiver ([0035]), wherein each receiver … is configured to receive radio signals of two polarizations that include (i) desired radio signals comprising the transmitted radio signals transmitted by the plurality of transmitters and reflected from objects in an environment ([0036]), and (ii) other radio signals that include interfering radio signals transmitted by at least one other radar sensing system ([0039]; [0068]);
wherein the … transmitters and … dual-polarized receivers are each configured to transmit and receive during respective alternating periods of time ([0004]: “monopulse radar”; Examiner note: monopulse radar involves alternating transmitting and receiving periods);
wherein each … dual-polarized receiver is configured to process the received radio signals based upon selected polarizations … ([0001]: “to polarization diversification and spacetime adaptive processing that apply weights considering the polarization dependence of the target to the dual-polarization radar signal.”; [0007]);
wherein each receiver … is configured to process the received radio signals of both polarizations and to segregate the desired radio signals from interfering radio signals using a combination of spatial … and polarization differences between the desired radio signals and the interfering radio signals from other radio systems ([0001]; [0004]; [0006-0007]; [0040-0046]).
Lee does not explicitly teach – but Li teaches:
a plurality of transmitters and a plurality of … receivers (Li [0102]: “plurality of mmWave transceivers”; [0214]), and
… wherein each of the dual-polarized receivers is configured to select the respective polarizations based upon a determined polarization of at least one of the radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system (Li [0009]: “radar reception interference information for use in processing signals received by the first radar system”; “different polarization types of the radar component of the second radar system”; [0214]: “polarity”), wherein at least one of the plurality of dual-polarized receivers is configured to determine the polarization of the at least one of the interfering radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system during at least one-a period of time when the transmitter is not transmitting ([0214]: “listen-before-talk”; [0215]: “This trigger signal indicates to bistatic radar receivers that the receiver should monitor received RF signals during a listen-before-reply (LBR) interval 730 to measure the RF environment and particularly the reception of RF signals that would interfere with processing of received bistatic radar signals”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee and use a plurality of transmitters and receivers, and select polarizations based upon a determined polarization of at least one of the radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system, and determine the polarization of the at least one of the radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system during a period of time when the transmitter is not transmitting, as taught by Li. Using a plurality of transmitters and receivers is considered ordinary and well-known in the arts, and is beneficial for improving spatial diversity and coverage. Adaptively determining and selecting polarizations based on the RF environment would be beneficial for improving interference mitigation and target detection.
Lee does not explicitly teach – but Korpet teaches:
…using a combination of spatial, spectral, and polarization differences… (Korpet [0008]; [0026-0027]; [0035]; [0055--0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee and segregate targets from interference using spectral difference in addition to spatial and polarization differences, as taught by Korpet. Using spectral differences would improve interference segregation by enabling the system to segregate signals based on frequency characteristics, and modifying the system of Lee to perform spectral segregation involves combing known methods to achieve a predictable result.
Regarding Claim 24, Lee teaches wherein each receiver of the … dual polarized receivers is configured to segregate received signals by direction of arrival and adapted to perform said segregation by polarization differences separately for each direction of arrival, such that at least one of the radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system is segregated based at least in part on its direction of arrival ([0046]; [0067]: “polarization diversification”; “high accuracy angle Estimation”; [0068]: “Thereafter, the radar signal processor 150 may remove the clutter signal component or jammer signal component from the STAP stage.”; [0069]; [0077]), and wherein the spatial difference between the desired radio signals and the interfering radio signals is defined at least in part by an angle between the objects reflecting the transmitted radio signals and the interfering radio signals ([0067-0069]: Lee teaches using “high accuracy angle estimation” to determine the location of the target and the clutter/jammer signal).
Lee does not explicitly teach – but Li teaches: a plurality of … receivers (Li [0102]; [0214]). It would have been obvious to modify Lee and use a plurality of receivers to determine direction or angle of a target, as taught by Li, which would improve performance of the system and would involve combining known elements to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 31, Lee does not explicitly teach – Korpet teaches: wherein each receiver of the … dual-polarized receivers is configured to separate received signals into spectral components, and further configured to perform the segregation by polarization differences separately for each spectral component (Korpet [0035]; [0055-58]). It would have been obvious to modify Lee and segregate targets from interference using spectral differences and polarization differences, as taught by Korpet, which would improve interference segregation and would involves combing known elements to achieve a predictable result.
Lee does not explicitly teach – but Li teaches: a plurality of … receivers (Li [0102]; [0214]). It would have been obvious to modify Lee and use a plurality of receivers to determine direction or angle of a target, as taught by Li, which would improve performance of the system and would involve combining known elements to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 32, Lee does not explicitly teach – but Korpet teaches: teaches wherein each receiver … is configured to separate received signals into spectral components and further into directions of arrival for each spectral component and are each configured to apply the segregation by polarization differences separately for each respective combination of a spectral component and a direction of arrival, such that at least one of the radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system is segregated based at least in part on its direction of arrival and polarization differences (Korpet [0026-0027]; [0035]; [0055-58]). It would have been obvious to modify Lee and segregate targets from interference using spectral differences and direction of arrival differences such that at least one of the radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system is segregated based at least in part on its direction of arrival and polarization differences, as taught by Korpet, which would improve interference segregation and would involves combing known elements to achieve a predictable result.
Lee does not explicitly teach – but Li teaches: a plurality of … receivers (Li [0102]; [0214]). It would have been obvious to modify Lee and use a plurality of receivers to determine direction or angle of a target, as taught by Li, which would improve performance of the system and would involve combining known elements to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 33, Lee teaches: the transmitter and the dual-polarized receiver ([0035]).
Lee does not explicitly teach – but Li teaches: wherein each transmitter of the plurality of transmitters is configured for installation and use on a vehicle, and wherein each receiver of the plurality of … receivers is configured for installation and use on the vehicle (Li [0214]: “vehicle radar systems”). It would have been obvious to modify Lee and install and use the transmitter and receiver on a vehicle, as taught by Li, which would improve performance of the vehicle and would involve applying the known radar system to a known field of use to yield predictable results.
Claims 3 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 102088426 B1), Korpet (US 2005/0078739), and Li (US 2023/0184883), as applied to Claims 1 and 23 above, and further in view of Gilmour (US 5,436,872).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee teaches: the system further comprising a receive antenna array communicatively coupled to the dual-polarized receiver … ([0007]; [0035]).
Lee does not explicitly teach – but Gilmour teaches: … wherein the … receiver is configured to perform coarse beamforming to perform the segregation by direction of arrival (Gilmour [col. 3, lines 20-25; 45-55]; [Claim 1]). It would have been obvious to modify Lee and use coarse beamforming to achieve a desired focus range and direction and thereby improve segregation, as taught by Gilmour. Modifying the system of Lee to use coarse beamforming involves applying a known technique to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 25, Lee teaches: the system further comprising a receive antenna array communicatively coupled to the plurality of dual-polarized receivers … ([0007]; [0035]).
Lee does not explicitly teach – but Gilmour teaches: … wherein the plurality of … receivers are configured to perform coarse beamforming to perform the segregation by direction of arrival (Gilmour [col. 3, lines 20-25; 45-55]; [Claim 1]). It would have been obvious to modify Lee and use coarse beamforming to achieve a desired focus range and direction and thereby improve segregation, as taught by Gilmour. Modifying the system of Lee to use coarse beamforming involves applying a known technique to yield predictable results.
Claims 18-19 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 102088426 B1), Korpet (US 2005/0078739), Li (US 2023/0184883), and Gilmour (US 5,436,872), as applied to Claims 3 and 25 above, and further in view of Tillery (US 2007/0046558).
Regarding Claim 18, Lee does not explicitly teach – but Tillery teaches: wherein the receive antenna array comprises a dual-polarization receive antenna, wherein the dual-polarized receiver is communicatively coupled to the dual-polarization antenna (Tillery [0007]). It would have been obvious to modify Lee to use a dual-polarization receive antenna to receive dual-polarized signals, as taught by Tillery, which would improve performance of the system and would involve combining known elements to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 19, Lee does not explicitly teach – but Tillery teaches: wherein the dual-polarization receive antenna comprises co-located crossed dipoles (Tillery [0007]). It would have been obvious to modify the system of Lee to use a dual-polarization receive antenna with co-located crossed dipoles to receive dual-polarized signals, as taught by Tillery, which would improve performance of the system and would involve combining known elements to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 26, Lee does not explicitly teach – but Tillery teaches: wherein the receive antenna array comprises a plurality of dual-polarization receive antennas, wherein each receiver of the plurality of dual-polarized receivers is communicatively coupled to a respective antenna of the dual-polarization receive antenna (Tillery [0007]). It would have been obvious to modify Lee to use a dual-polarization receive antenna to receive dual-polarized signals, as taught by Tillery, which would improve performance of the system and would involve combining known elements to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 27, Lee does not explicitly teach – but Tillery teaches: wherein each antenna of the plurality of dual-polarization receive antennas comprises co-located crossed dipoles (Tillery [0007]). It would have been obvious to modify Lee to use a dual-polarization receive antenna with co-located crossed dipoles to receive dual-polarized signals, as taught by Tillery, which would improve performance of the system and would involve combining known elements to yield predictable results.
Claims 20-21 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 102088426 B1), Korpet (US 2005/0078739), Li (US 2023/0184883), Gilmour (US 5,436,872), and Tillery (US 2007/0046558), as applied to Claims 18 and 26 above, and further in view of Timofeev (US 2018/0062258).
Regarding Claim 20, Lee does not explicitly teach – but Timofeev teaches: wherein the dual-polarization receive antenna comprises crossed dipoles located in offset locations, such that the offset locations give rise to different virtual receiver arrays for the two polarizations (Timofeev [0036]; Claim 1). It would have been obvious to modify Lee to use a dual-polarization receive antenna with offset crossed dipoles to receive dual-polarized signals, as taught by Timofeev, which would improve performance of the system and would involve combining known elements to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 21, Lee does not explicitly teach – but Timofeev teaches: wherein the crossed dipoles are configured to provide a polarization of grating lobes that is different than the polarization of the main lobe, such that extra grating lobe suppression is provided (Timofeev [0036]; Claim 1). It would have been obvious to modify Lee to use a dual-polarization receive antenna to receive dual-polarized signals and provide lobe suppression, as taught by Timofeev, which would improve performance of the system and would involve combining known elements to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 28, Lee does not explicitly teach – but Timofeev teaches: wherein each antenna of the plurality of dual-polarization receive antennas comprises respective crossed dipoles located in offset locations, such that the offset locations give rise to different virtual receiver arrays for the two polarizations (Timofeev [0036]; Claim 1). It would have been obvious to modify Lee to use a dual-polarization receive antenna with offset crossed dipoles to receive dual-polarized signals, as taught by Timofeev, which would improve performance of the system and would involve combining known elements to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 29, Lee does not explicitly teach – but Timofeev teaches: wherein the crossed dipoles are configured to provide a polarization of grating lobes that is different than the polarization of the main lobe, such that extra grating lobe suppression is provided (Timofeev [0036]; Claim 1). It would have been obvious to modify Lee to use a dual-polarization receive antenna to receive dual-polarized signals and provide lobe suppression, as taught by Timofeev, which would improve performance of the system and would involve combining known elements to yield predictable results.
Claims 22 and 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 102088426 B1), Korpet (US 2005/0078739), Li (US 2023/0184883), Gilmour (US 5,436,872), and Tillery (US 2007/0046558), as applied to Claims 18 and 26 above, and further in view of Pratt (US 2017/0338874).
Regarding Claim 22, Lee does not explicitly teach – but Pratt teaches: wherein the dual-polarization receiver is configured to receive dual polarized radio signals from the dual-polarization antenna and to combine the received dual polarized radio signals to produce receive nulls in specific directions from which interference can be received, such that at least one of the radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system is segregated based at least in part on its direction of arrival (Pratt [0005]; [0030]; [0037]). It would have been obvious to modify Lee and produce receive nulls to reduce interference such that at least one of the radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system is segregated based at least in part on its direction of arrival, as taught by Pratt, which would improve performance of the system and would involve combining known elements to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 30, Lee does not explicitly teach – but Pratt teaches: wherein each receiver of the plurality of dual-polarization receivers is configured to receive dual polarized radio signals from respective antennas of the plurality of dual-polarization antennas and to each combine the respective received dual polarized radio signals to produce respective receive nulls in specific directions from which interference can be received, such that at least one of the radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system is segregated based at least in part on its direction of arrival (Pratt [0005]; [0030]; [0037]). It would have been obvious to modify Lee and produce receive nulls to reduce interference such that at least one of the radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system is segregated based at least in part on its direction of arrival, as taught by Pratt, which would improve performance of the system and would involve combining known elements to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH Y. ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-0170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-4PM.
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, William J. Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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.
/NOAH YI MIN ZHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648