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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C § 112(b) rejections of claims 1, 2, 6, and 10, filed on Pages 6-7 in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” on 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “sufficiently” does not automatically render the claim as indefinite and that the term “sufficiently” is actually a term of approximation rather than a term of degree as Examiner called in in the previous office action. Examiner acknowledges that the use of a relative claim terminology does not automatically render the claim as indefinite, however, respectfully maintains that a standard for ascertaining a requisite degree is absent in the instant disclosure, thus in the instant case here there is still ambiguity as to what would be "substantially 'horizontal/equal/aligned'" and what would not. Examiner thinks that regardless of if "substantially" is a term of degree or a term of approximation, in the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art would still have a difficult time appraising the scope of the invention, and as such, in the instant case, Examiner is maintaining that the use of Substantially in claims 1, 2, 6, and 10 renders that scope of those claims as indefinite. Examiner will maintain the indefinite rejections of claims 1, 2, 6, and 10.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-12 in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” filed on 10/28/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C § 102 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-12 by various publications have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made based on the additional limitation in the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amendment dated 10/28/2025 adds the limitation of “the first support structure and the second support structure are in electrical contact and the die pad and opposing pad are set to ground potential,” to claim 1. Applicant points to Page 8, lines 27-34 and Page 11, lines 24-25 for support from the original filed disclosure to add this limitation. However, upon review, the only instance that any mention setting die pads to ground is found in Para. [0053], where there still fails to be any explicit recitation that opposing die pads are set to ground. Currently, the language in the specification only mentions that the die pads “may be set to ground potential” and that the die pads “may be grounded by connecting either of them to ground potential”, and fails to explicitly state that the pads are grounded and how in regard to all present embodiments. One of skill in the art would still have to perform experiments as there is not adequate support in the specification at the time the instant application was filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 term "substantially" in claims 1, 2, 6, 10 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite; it 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. “Substantially” is defined as "being largely but not wholly that which is specified” (see Merriam Webster online dictionary). This language is indefinite as the specification does not describe what is required of in order to be considered “substantially horizontal” or “substantially equal”. The term “substantially” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at either end of what would be actually equal. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines these boundaries. Thus, it is unclear whether one must be within some small percentage of deviation of the target (such as 0.01 %, 0.1 %, 1 %, 2 %, 5 %, 10 %, or some other percentage) or within a certain number of units of the target and specifically which of these possible values defines the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Furthermore, there is no objective consensus in the art of the boundaries for substantially horizontal.
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 1-4, 7, 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious by European Patent Application by Hosokawa et al. (EP 0630047 A1; Hosokawa) in view of United States Patent Application Publication by Kim (US 20080224294 A1; Kim).
Regarding Claim 1, Hosokawa discloses an electronic component (Fig. 2, Col. 5, line 7-9), comprising a plastic package (10) and an electric chip (lower 9) which is inside the package (Fig. 12, where die/s is/are inside the plastic package 10 [10 is not labeled in Fig. 12, but is the outline portion]), wherein the plastic package has a first surface and a second surface, and the first surface and second surface are opposite to each other in a vertical z-direction, and the plastic package has at least one side surface which extends between the first surface and the second surface (Fig. 12, the long sides are first and second surface, and the short sides where element 3 exits from are the side surfaces),
and the electronic component comprises a metallic die pad (lower 8) which defines a die pad plane which is substantially horizontal, and a metallic first support structure (lower leads 2 in Fig. 11, or tie bar portions in fig. 6) extends from the die pad to a first support point on the at least one side surface of the plastic package, wherein the first support structure is at least partly embedded within the plastic package (Fig. 11, where the lower leads 2 are embedded in package 10), and the z-coordinate of the first support point defines a horizontal first support plane, and a first electric chip is attached to the die pad (Figs. 7, 11, 12, where lower die 9 is attached to lower die pad 8),
wherein the electronic component (lower 9) also comprises a metallic opposing pad (upper 8) which defines an opposing pad plane which is substantially horizontal, and a metallic second support structure (upper leads 2 in Fig. 11, or tie bar portions in fig. 6) extends from the opposing pad to a second support point on the at least one side surface of the plastic package, wherein the second support structure is at least partly embedded within the plastic package (Fig. 11, where the upper leads 2 are embedded in package 10), and the z-coordinate of the second support point defines a horizontal second support plane.
However, Hosokawa fails to disclose were the first support structure and the second support structure are in electrical contact and the die pad and opposing pad are set to ground potential.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kim discloses an electronic component 400, with a chip (430/440) and ground pad (410), where the leads from the die pad are electrically connected to extremal ground traces.
In view of the disclosure of Kim, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the disclosure of Kim to Hosokawa at the time the instant application was filed to incorporate having the first and second support structures both in electrical contact via a tiebar, and having that electrical connection be to ground, thus grounding the die pads in hosokawa. Accordingly, one would have been motivated to make the modification because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the advantages that having a grounded metal die pads so that “the die pad can function as an electromagnetic interference shielding for these chips and therefore the interference between these chips can be avoided” (Kim: Para 15)(also see Kim: Para 25).
Regarding Claim 2, Hosokawa and Kim discloses the electronic component according to claim 1, and further wherein the z-coordinate of the die pad plane is less than the z-coordinate of the first support plane (Hosokawa: See figs. 11 and 12 where the die pad [lower 8] is lower than where the lower lead 2 meets the plastic package 10 making the first support plane), and the z-coordinate of the first support plane is substantially equal to the z-coordinate of the second support plane (Figs. 11 and 12, where the upper leads 2 and lower leads 2 meet at the package side).
Regarding Claim 3, Hosokawa and Kim discloses the electronic component according to claim 2, and further wherein the z-coordinate of the opposing pad plane is greater than the z-coordinate of the second support plane (Hosokawa: Figs. 11 and 12, where support pad [upper 8] is above where the upper lead 2 meets the plastic package 10 making the second support plane).
Regarding Claim 4, Hosokawa and Kim discloses the electronic component according to claim 3, wherein the difference between (I) the z-coordinate of the die pad and the z-coordinate of the first support plane is equal to the difference between (II) the z-coordinate of the opposing pad and the z-coordinate of the second support plane (Hosokawa: Fig. 11, where the leads are positioned at the package first and second surface, and the leads are disposed in the center of the package).
Regarding Claim 7, Hosokawa and Kim discloses the electronic component according to claim 1, and further wherein a second electric chip (Hosokawa: upper 9) is attached to the opposing pad (Hosokawa: upper 8) and the first support point is joined to the second support point so that the first support structure is in electrical contact with the second support structure (Hosokawa: Col. 5, Para. 7, “As shown in FIGS. 10 and 11, cutting of the coupling portions, lead forming, cutting of the distal ends of the outer leads, and cutting of suspension pins are performed, thereby completing a resin-sealed semiconductor device having a pair of semiconductor elements).
Regarding Claim 10, Hosokawa and Kim discloses the electronic component according to claim 1, and further wherein the size and geometry of the die pad is substantially equal to the size and geometry of the opposing pad, and the die pad is substantially aligned with the opposing pad in the vertical direction.
The use of substantially makes the metes and bounds of the limitations as claimed ambiguous. However, through that ambiguity, it is apparent that Figs. 7, 11, and 12, show the die pad (Hosokawa: lower 8) and opposing pad (Hosokawa: upper 8) to be at least substantially equal in size, geometry, and vertical orthographic projection shape.
Regarding Claim 11, Hosokawa and Kim discloses the electronic component according to claim 1, and further wherein the die pad is exposed on the first surface of the package (Hosokawa: Fig. 11, Where the die pad [lower 8] is exposed on the first surface of the package).
Regarding Claim 12, Hosokawa and Kim discloses the electronic component according to claim 1, wherein the opposing pad is exposed on the second surface of the package (Hosokawa: Fig. 11, Where the opposing pad [upper 8] is exposed on the second surface of the package).
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious by Japanese patent publication by 杉浦 力夫 translated to Rikio Sugiura et al. (JP S6064455 A; Sugiura) in view of Kim.
Regarding Claim 1, Sugiura discloses an electronic component (31) comprising a plastic package (4) and an electric chip (33) which is inside the package (Figs. 5 a-c), wherein the plastic package has a first surface and a second surface, and the first surface and second surface are opposite to each other in a vertical z-direction, and the plastic package has at least one side surface which extends between the first surface and the second surface (Figs. 5 a, the long sides are first and second surface, and the short sides disposed to either side),
and the electronic component comprises a metallic die pad (37) which defines a die pad plane which is substantially horizontal, and a metallic first support structure (Fig. 5b, curved part and onward of 37 at the edge of the die pad) extends from the die pad to a first support point on the at least one side surface of the plastic package, wherein the first support structure is at least partly embedded within the plastic package (Fig. 5a, Point at which first support structure reaches a package side surface), and the z-coordinate of the first support point defines a horizontal first support plane, and a first electric chip is attached to the die pad (Figs. 5a/b, where Die 33 is attached to die pad 37),
wherein the electronic component also comprises a metallic opposing pad (40) which defines an opposing pad plane which is substantially horizontal, and a metallic second support structure (Fig. 5b, the leads disposed at either side of the opposing pad 40) extends from the opposing pad to a second support point on the at least one side surface of the plastic package, wherein the second support structure is at least partly embedded within the plastic package (Fig. 5a, Point at which second support structure reaches a package side surface), and the z-coordinate of the second support point defines a horizontal second support plane.
However, Sugiura fails to disclose were the first support structure and the second support structure are in electrical contact and the die pad and opposing pad are set to ground potential.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kim discloses an electronic component 400, with a chip (430/440) and ground pad (410), where the leads from the die pad are electrically connected to extremal ground traces.
In view of the disclosure of Kim, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the disclosure of Kim to Sugiura at the time the instant application was filed to incorporate having the first and second support structures both in electrical contact via a tiebar, and having that electrical connection be to ground, thus grounding the die pads in Sugiura. Accordingly, one would have been motivated to make the modification because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the advantages that having a grounded metal die pads so that “the die pad can function as an electromagnetic interference shielding for these chips and therefore the interference between these chips can be avoided” (Kim: Para 15)(also see Kim: Para 25).
Regarding Claim 5, Sugiura and Kim disclose the electronic component according to claim 2, and further wherein the z-coordinate of the opposing pad plane is equal to the z-coordinate of the second support plane (Sugiura: Fig. 5a/b, Where the second support point plane is equal to the opposing pad plane because of the second support structure extend horizontally away from the opposing pad).
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious by German patent publication by Bemmerl et al. (DE 102017202345 A1; Bemmerl) in view of Kim.
Regarding Claim 1, Bemmerl discloses an electronic component (200) comprising a plastic package and an electric chip (Fig. 2B – 202 or Fig. 3C - 330) which is inside the package (204 – casting mass), wherein the plastic package (204) has a first surface and a second surface, and the first surface and second surface are opposite to each other in a vertical z-direction, and the plastic package has at least one side surface which extends between the first surface and the second surface (Fig. 2B, where the top and bottom are the first and second surfaces and the sides are side surfaces),
and the electronic component comprises a metallic die pad (Fig. 2B – 102 or Fig. 3C, 302) which defines a die pad plane which is substantially horizontal, and a metallic first support structure (Fig. 2B – 106 or Fig. 3C - 306) extends from the die pad to a first support point on the at least one side surface of the plastic package, wherein the first support structure is at least partly embedded within the plastic package (Fig 3A and 3E, where the die pad 302 is attached to the first supports 306, and the first supports extend to the side surface), and the z-coordinate of the first support point defines a horizontal first support plane, and a first electric chip is attached to the die pad (Fig. 2B, 3C, Where the chip is attached to the die pad),
wherein the electronic component also comprises a metallic opposing pad (Fig. 2B – 104 or Fig. 3C - 304) which defines an opposing pad plane which is substantially horizontal, and a metallic second support structure (Fig. 3A, 310/308) extends from the opposing pad to a second support point on the at least one side surface of the plastic package, wherein the second support structure is at least partly embedded within the plastic package (Fig 3A and 3E, where the opposing pad 304 is attached to the second supports 310/308, and the second supports extend to the side surface), and the z-coordinate of the second support point defines a horizontal second support plane.
However, Bemmerl fails to disclose were the first support structure and the second support structure are in electrical contact and the die pad and opposing pad are set to ground potential.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kim discloses an electronic component 400, with a chip (430/440) and ground pad (410), where the leads from the die pad are electrically connected to extremal ground traces.
In view of the disclosure of Kim, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the disclosure of Kim to Bemmerl at the time the instant application was filed to incorporate having the first and second support structures both in electrical contact via a tiebar, and having that electrical connection be to ground, thus grounding the die pads in Bemmerl. Accordingly, one would have been motivated to make the modification because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the advantages that having a grounded metal die pads so that “the die pad can function as an electromagnetic interference shielding for these chips and therefore the interference between these chips can be avoided” (Kim: Para 15)(also see Kim: Para 25).
Regarding Claim 6, Bemmerl and Kim disclose the electronic component according to claim 1, and further wherein the z-coordinate of the die pad plane is equal to the z-coordinate of the first support plane (Bemmerl: Fig. 3C/3E, where die pad 302 is the same z-coordinate of where first support 306 reaches side surface [See fig 3E for mold and where side surface is]), and the z-coordinate of the first support plane (Bemmerl: 306) is substantially equal to the z-coordinate of the second support plane (Bemmerl: Fig. 3E, where the first supports 306 and second supports 308 are all at the same z-coordinate at the point where they are at the side surface), and the z-coordinate of the opposing pad plane is greater than the z- coordinate of the second support plane (Bemmerl: Fig. 3C, where opposing pad 304 is above the second support plane at the height of element 308).
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious by 村上 雅映 translated to Murakami et al. (JP H0297050 A; Murakami) in view of Kim.
Regarding Claim 1, Murakami discloses an electronic component (Semiconductor IC) comprising a plastic package (11 – resin mold) and an electric chip (3) which is inside the package (Fig. 3), wherein the plastic package has a first surface and a second surface, and the first surface and second surface are opposite to each other in a vertical z-direction, and the plastic package has at least one side surface which extends between the first surface and the second surface (Fig 3, where first and second surface are top and bottom sides of the device in the figure and the side surface is the surfaces disposed between the first and second surface at either side),
and the electronic component comprises a metallic die pad (Fig. 3, Pad disposed below die 3) which defines a die pad plane which is substantially horizontal, and a metallic first support structure (Fig. 3, lower lead 2) extends from the die pad to a first support point on the at least one side surface of the plastic package, wherein the first support structure is at least partly embedded within the plastic package (Fig. 3, where first support structure [lower 2], extends from the die pad to side of the package), and the z-coordinate of the first support point defines a horizontal first support plane, and a first electric chip is attached to the die pad (Fig. 3),
wherein the electronic component also comprises a metallic opposing pad (Fig. 3, pad above the upper chip) which defines an opposing pad plane which is substantially horizontal, and a metallic second support structure (upper 2) extends from the opposing pad to a second support point on the at least one side surface of the plastic package, wherein the second support structure is at least partly embedded within the plastic package (Fig. 3, where second support structure [upper 2], extends from the opposing pad to side of the package), and the z-coordinate of the second support point defines a horizontal second support plane.
However, Murakami fails to disclose were the first support structure and the second support structure are in electrical contact and the die pad and opposing pad are set to ground potential.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kim discloses an electronic component 400, with a chip (430/440) and ground pad (410), where the leads from the die pad are electrically connected to extremal ground traces.
In view of the disclosure of Kim, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the disclosure of Kim to Murakami at the time the instant application was filed to incorporate having the first and second support structures both in electrical contact via a tiebar, and having that electrical connection be to ground, thus grounding the die pads in Murakami. Accordingly, one would have been motivated to make the modification because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the advantages that having a grounded metal die pads so that “the die pad can function as an electromagnetic interference shielding for these chips and therefore the interference between these chips can be avoided” (Kim: Para 15)(also see Kim: Para 25).
Regarding Claim 8, Murakami and Kim discloses the electronic component according to claim 1, wherein the z-coordinate of the die pad plane is equal to the z-coordinate of the first support plane (Murakami: Fig. 3, where the die pad is the same height at which the first support member [lower 2] is at the side surface), and the z-coordinate of the first support plane is less than the z-coordinate of the second support plane (Murakami: Fig. 3), and the z-coordinate of the opposing pad plane is equal to the z-coordinate of the second support plane (Murakami: Fig. 3, where the opposing pad is the same height at which the second support member [upper 2] is at the side surface).
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious by Japanese patent application by Inotsume et al. (JP 2007294884 A; Inotsume) in view of Kim.
Regarding Claim 1, Inotsume discloses an electronic component (semiconductor device) comprising a plastic package (40 -insulated resin) and an electric chip (20) which is inside the package (Fig. 1), wherein the plastic package has a first surface and a second surface, and the first surface and second surface are opposite to each other in a vertical z-direction, and the plastic package has at least one side surface which extends between the first surface and the second surface (Fig 1, where first and second surface are top and bottom sides of the device in the figure and the side surface is the surfaces disposed between the first and second surface at either side),
and the electronic component comprises a metallic die pad (13) which defines a die pad plane which is substantially horizontal, and a metallic first support structure (19) extends from the die pad to a first support point on the at least one side surface of the plastic package, wherein the first support structure is at least partly embedded within the plastic package (Fig. 1, where first support structure 19 [lead], extends from the die pad 13 to side of the package), and the z-coordinate of the first support point defines a horizontal first support plane, and a first electric chip is attached to the die pad (Fig. 1, where die 20 is on die pad 13),
wherein the electronic component also comprises a metallic opposing pad (12) which defines an opposing pad plane which is substantially horizontal, and a metallic second support structure (16) extends from the opposing pad to a second support point on the at least one side surface of the plastic package, wherein the second support structure is at least partly embedded within the plastic package (Fig. 1, where second support structure 16 [lead], extends from the opposing pad 12 to side of the package), and the z-coordinate of the second support point defines a horizontal second support plane.
However, Inotsume fails to disclose were the first support structure and the second support structure are in electrical contact and the die pad and opposing pad are set to ground potential.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kim discloses an electronic component 400, with a chip (430/440) and ground pad (410), where the leads from the die pad are electrically connected to extremal ground traces.
In view of the disclosure of Kim, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the disclosure of Kim to Inotsume at the time the instant application was filed to incorporate having the first and second support structures both in electrical contact via a tiebar, and having that electrical connection be to ground, thus grounding the die pads in Inotsume. Accordingly, one would have been motivated to make the modification because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the advantages that having a grounded metal die pads so that “the die pad can function as an electromagnetic interference shielding for these chips and therefore the interference between these chips can be avoided” (Kim: Para 15)(also see Kim: Para 25).
Regarding Claim 9, Inotsume and Kim disclose the electronic component according to claim 1, wherein the z-coordinate of the first support plane is equal to the z-coordinate of the second support plane (Inotsume: Fig. 1, where the first and second support structures meet at the same point at the side surface), and the z- coordinate of the die pad plane is greater than the z-coordinate of the first support plane, and the z-coordinate of the opposing pad plane is greater than the z-coordinate of the die pad plane (Inotsume: Fig. 1, Where the die pad 13 and the opposing pad 12 are both disposed above the point at which first and second support structures meet at the side surface).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DANIEL J HIBBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-1562. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-5pm 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, Zandra Smith can be reached at (571) 272-2429. 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.
/DANIEL J HIBBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/ZANDRA V SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899