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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Lentine in view of Halir, arguments state that Lentine does not disclose the electro-optical material as “directly disposed” on the first top surface of the waveguide (see Remarks, Pages 10-11). The examiner interprets waveguide consistent with terminology from Applicant’s specification to be the waveguide portions 114.1 and 114.2 and also to include the portion of 106 surrounding 114.1 and 114.2. In Applicant’s specification with attention to Figure 4, “First material” is surrounded by a second material surrounding the first material to comprise the sub-wavelength waveguide. The surrounding layer 201 is also named the ”waveguide layer”. Accordingly, it would be reasonable to identify the portion 114.1/114.2 and the surrounding portion of 106 as a waveguide.
Further regarding the rejection of claims 1, 10, and 19, arguments state that the references do not disclose the waveguide as configured to diffuse a first light field from the waveguide layer to the electro-optical material by adjusting a first refractive index of the waveguide layer to reduce a difference between the first refractive index of the waveguide layer and a second refractive index of the electro-optical material layer. Lentine, however, does disclose both increasing and decreasing refractive index of different parts of the waveguide (Column 7 lines 17-25) such that inherently one part will become closer to the refractive index of the electro-optical material.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lentine et al. US 10,788,689 B1 (hereinafter “Lentine”) in view of Non-Patent Literature Document “Waveguide sub-wavelength structures: a review of principles and applications” by Halir et al. (Laser Photonics Rev., 9; cited on PTO-892 accompanying Office action mailed 26 August 2024; hereinafter “Halir”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Lentine teaches an optical modulator (FIGs. 1-3) comprising:
a waveguide layer comprising a waveguide (114.1, 114.2, also including the portion of 106 surrounding 114.1 and 114.2; Col. 6, line 33; such interpretation is consistent with Applicant’s use of the term waveguide, see Application Figures 3, 4, and 6 elements 201, 2011), wherein the waveguide comprises a first top surface (see annotated FIG. 2 below);
an electro-optical material layer (108; Col. 4, line 67) directly disposed on the first top surface (see annotated FIG. 2 below), wherein the electro-optical material layer is a lithium niobate thin film (“lithium niobate thin film” also called “LN thin film” or “TFLN” 108; Col. 4, line 67, Col. 6, lines 25 and 36) comprising a second top surface, a bottom surface (line “a-a” in FIGs. 1-2), a first side, and a second side, wherein the bottom surface does not extend past the first top surface (see annotated FIG. 2 below), and wherein the waveguide is configured to diffuse a first light field (“guided mode” in waveguide 114.1; Col. 6, line 36) from the waveguide layer to the electro-optical material layer (Col. 6, lines 34-38 disclose that the waveguides 114 are “within an optical coupling distance” of the electro-optical material layer 108 and that the first light field in the waveguide is “captured and confined” within the LN film, i.e., the waveguide is configured to diffuse a first light field to the electro-optical material layer; see also FIGs. 5A-5B) by adjusting a first refractive index of the waveguide layer to reduce a difference between the first refractive index of the waveguide layer and a second refractive index of the electro-optical material layer (one arm is increased in refractive index while the other arm is decreased; inherently one of the arms will become closer to the refractive index of the electro-optical material; Column 7 lines 17-25); and
electrodes (140, 142, 144; Col. 6, lines 59-63) disposed on the second top surface (not shown, but Col. 7, lines 26-31 discloses that the electrodes may be positioned over the LN film, i.e., on the second top surface) and configured to apply an electrical signal to the electro-optical material layer (Col. 7, line 34).
PNG
media_image1.png
294
788
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lentine does not teach that the waveguide is a sub-wavelength waveguide.
Halir teaches that it is known to produce sub-wavelength waveguides for use in photonic systems (Abstract). Sub-wavelength structures (e.g., as shown in FIG. 2) are useful because they are able to suppress diffraction effects arising from their periodicity (Introduction). Halir further teaches that sub-wavelength waveguides are specifically known for use in optical modulators (sections 4.3-4.5 on p. 39-40).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the teachings of Halir, to use a sub-wavelength waveguide for the waveguide of Lentine, thereby rendering obvious instant claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so based on the teachings of Halir that sub-wavelength waveguides are known to be advantageous because they suppress diffraction effects (Introduction) and that they are suitable for use in optical modulators (sections 4.3-4.5). The selection of a known material (e.g., a sub-wavelength waveguide) based on its suitability for its intended use (e.g., as a waveguide in an optical modulator) has been held to be obvious. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding independent claim 10, Lentine teaches an optical system (FIGs. 3, 9) comprising:
a light source (Col. 7, lines 61-62 indicate that an optical input, i.e., a light, is input to the device at “port” 150, which indicates a light source must be present in order to provide the input; FIG. 3) configured to:
generate an input light (a light source inherently generates light, which in the disclosure of Lentine may be considered an input light; see arrows in FIG. 3);
transmit the input light (Col. 7, lines 61-62; see arrows in FIG. 3);
a drive apparatus (“external circuit,” not shown; Col. 6, line 63) configured to:
generate an electrical signal (Col. 6, line 63); and
transmit the electrical signal (Col. 6, line 63);
an optical fiber (“input and output optical fibers,” not shown; Col. 11, lines 47-48);
a circuit path (connection between external circuit and electrode 142; Col. 6, lines 59-63); and
an optical modulator (FIGs. 1-2) coupled to the light source through the optical fiber (Col. 7, lines 61-62, Col. 11, lines 47-48), coupled to the drive apparatus through the circuit path (Col. 6, lines 59-63), and comprising:
a waveguide layer comprising a waveguide (114.1, 114.2; Col. 6, line 33) and configured to receive, through the optical fiber, the input light (see arrows in FIG. 3), wherein the waveguide comprises a first top surface (see annotated FIG. 2 above);
an electro-optical material layer (108; Col. 4, line 67) disposed on the first top surface (see annotated FIG. 2 above), wherein the electro-optical material layer is a lithium niobate thin film (“lithium niobate thin film” also called “LN thin film” or “TFLN” 108; Col. 4, line 67, Col. 6, lines 25 and 36) comprising a second top surface, a bottom surface (line “a-a” in FIGs. 1-2), a first side, and a second side, and wherein the bottom surface does not extend past the first top surface (see annotated FIG. 2 above),
electrodes (140, 142, 144; Col. 6, lines 59-63) disposed on the second top surface (not shown, but Col. 7, lines 26-31 discloses that the electrodes may be positioned over the LN film, i.e., on the second top surface) and configured to:
receive, through the circuit path, the electrical signal (Col. 6, lines 59-63); and
apply an electrical signal to the electro-optical material layer (Col. 7, line 34).
wherein the optical modulator is configured to modulate the input light based on the electrical signal (Col. 7, lines 6-16; the examiner also notes that this limitation is a description of how optical modulators are generally understood to function), and
wherein the waveguide is configured to diffuse a first light field (“guided mode” in waveguide 114.1; Col. 6, line 36) from the waveguide layer to the electro-optical material layer (Col. 6, lines 34-38 disclose that the waveguides 114 are “within an optical coupling distance” of the electro-optical material layer 108 and that the first light field in the waveguide is “captured and confined” within the LN film, i.e., the waveguide is configured to diffuse a first light field to the electro-optical material layer; see also FIGs. 5A-5B) by adjusting a first refractive index of the waveguide layer to reduce a difference between the first refractive index of the waveguide layer and a second refractive index of the electro-optical material layer (one arm is increased in refractive index while the other arm is decreased; inherently one of the arms will become closer to the refractive index of the electro-optical material).
Lentine does not teach that the waveguide is a sub-wavelength waveguide.
Halir teaches that it is known to produce sub-wavelength waveguides for use in photonic systems (Abstract). Sub-wavelength structures (e.g., as shown in FIG. 2) are useful because they are able to suppress diffraction effects arising from their periodicity (Introduction). Halir further teaches that sub-wavelength waveguides are specifically known for use in optical modulators (sections 4.3-4.5 on p. 39-40).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the teachings of Halir, to use a sub-wavelength waveguide for the waveguide of Lentine, thereby rendering obvious instant claim 10. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so based on the teachings of Halir that sub-wavelength waveguides are known to be advantageous because they suppress diffraction effects (Introduction) and that they are suitable for use in optical modulators (sections 4.3-4.5). The selection of a known material (e.g., a sub-wavelength waveguide) based on its suitability for its intended use (e.g., as a waveguide in an optical modulator) has been held to be obvious. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Lentine/Halir additionally teaches wherein the sub-wavelength waveguide (114.1, 114.2 in combination with the teachings of Halir) further comprises a third side and a fourth side (see annotated FIG. 3 below), wherein the waveguide layer (114) further comprises a beam splitter (146) disposed on the third side and a beam combiner (148) disposed on the fourth side, wherein the beam splitter is configured to output a second light field (Col. 7, lines 58-64 – as a Mach-Zehnder modulator (MZM) is generally understood to function, beam splitter 146 outputs a first light field along one of waveguides 114.1 and 114.2 and outputs a second light field along the other of waveguides 114.1 and 114.2), and wherein the sub-wavelength waveguide is further configured to:
diffuse, into the electro-optical material layer (108), the second light field (Col. 6, lines 33-39 – waveguide 114.2 is optically coupled to layer 108 so that the second light field is diffused and then “captured and confined within” layer 108; see also FIGs. 5A-5B); and
diffuse a third light field at the electro-optical material layer into the beam combiner (Col. 7, lines 58-64 – as a Mach-Zehnder modulator (MZM) is generally understood to function, the first and second light fields are recombined into a third light field at beam combiner 148).
PNG
media_image2.png
457
880
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Lentine/Halir additionally teaches wherein the sub-wavelength waveguide (114.1, 114.2 in combination with the teachings of Halir) is further configured to diffuse a second light field (“guided mode” in waveguide 114.2; Col. 6, line 36) at the electro-optical material layer (108) into the waveguide layer (Col. 6, line 37, Col. 9, lines 29-37; FIG. 5B – even when the light field is “captured and confined” in layer 108, it is clear from FIG. 5B that some portion of the light field amplitude is still present in the waveguide 114, which meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim that a second light field is “diffused” into the waveguide layer at the electro-optical material layer).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Lentine/Halir additionally teaches wherein the sub-wavelength waveguide (114.1, 114.2 in combination with the teachings of Halir, esp. FIG. 2) has a circular hole structure, a strip structure, or a polygonal hole structure (see FIG. 2 of Halir, which shows a strip structure).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Lentine/Halir additionally teaches wherein the sub-wavelength waveguide (114.1, 114.2 in combination with the teachings of Halir) is filled with a first material, and wherein a first refractive index of the first material is different from a second refractive index of a second material of the waveguide layer (Halir first paragraph of section 2; the examiner notes that this limitation is simply a description how sub-wavelength waveguides are generally understood to be formed).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Lentine/Halir, as applied to claims 5 and 14 above, does not explicitly teach that the first material is air or silicon dioxide.
Halir teaches that it is known to produce sub-wavelengths waveguides for use in photonic systems specifically wherein the waveguide core (the “second material” or the “material of the waveguide layer” of the instant claims) is silicon and the gaps between the strips of the waveguide core (the “first material”) is silicon oxide, a polymer, or air (first paragraph of section 2 on p. 26; FIG. 2). Using materials such as silicon, air, or silicon oxide, none of which are electro-optical materials and therefore do not have a refractive index which changes significantly in the presence of an electric field, allows the sub-wavelength waveguide to behave the same way regardless of the electric field applied across the device. The electromagnetic properties of a sub-wavelength waveguide produced as described by Halir are extremely well-known and predictable by theory (second paragraph of section 2 on p. 26).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the teachings of Halir, to use air or silicon dioxide as the first material, thereby rendering obvious instant claims 6 and 15. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so based on the teachings of Halir that such a material is well-known to be suitable for use in a sub-wavelength waveguide and that the behavior of a sub-wavelength waveguide made with such a material is easily predictable, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be desirable. The selection of a known material (e.g., air or silicon dioxide) based on its suitability for its intended use (e.g., to form a sub-wavelength waveguide) has been held to be obvious. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Lentine/Halir additionally teaches wherein a material of the waveguide layer (114 in combination with the teachings of Halir) comprises silicon, silicon nitride, or group III-V materials (Col. 5, lines 24-25 teach that silicon or silicon nitride are both suitable to form the waveguide layer).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Lentine/Halir additionally teaches wherein the lithium niobate film (108) is tiled on the first top surface through bonding (Col. 6, lines 24-28).
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lentine in view of Halir as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Ma et al. US 2018/0081204 A1 (cited on PTO-892 accompanying Office action mailed 26 August 2024; hereinafter “Ma”).
Regarding claims 9 and 18 (depending, respectively, from claims 1 and 10), Lentine/Halir does not teach that a material of the electrodes (140, 142, 146) comprises graphene or a transparent conductive oxide. The electrodes of Lentine are made of aluminum (Col. 6, lines 59; FIG. 2).
Ma teaches that electrodes in optical phase modulators may be made of metal, such as aluminum, or of a suitable non-metallic electrically conductive material, such as a conductive oxide or graphene ([0047]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the teachings of Ma, to use a material which comprises graphene or a transparent conductive oxide to form the electrodes, thereby rendering obvious instant claims 9 and 18. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so based on the teachings of Ma that a non-metallic electrode, such as one made of graphene or TCO, is suitable to use in combination with a ferroelectric material, such as lithium niobate, because it may reduce leakage currents through the ferroelectric material ([0047]). The selection of a known material (e.g., graphene or a transparent conductive oxide) based on its suitability for its intended use (e.g., as an electrode in combination with a ferroelectric material) has been held to be obvious. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welch et al. US 2008/0138088 A1 (hereinafter “Welch”) in view of Lentine et al. US 10,788,689 B1 (hereinafter “Lentine”) and Non-Patent Literature Document “Waveguide sub-wavelength structures: a review of principles and applications” by Halir et al. (Laser Photonics Rev., 9; cited on PTO-892 accompanying Office action mailed 26 August 2024; hereinafter “Halir”).
Regarding independent claim 19, Welch teaches a network device (“OEO REGEN” 79; [0175]-[0176], [0219]-[0221]; FIGs. 10, 28) comprising:
a main board (“submount” 83; [0176]);
a wavelength division multiplexer/demultiplexer (“optical combiner” 18 and/or “optical decombiner” also called “optical wavelength-selective combiner” 82; [0175]; FIG. 10) disposed on the main board (FIG. 10) and configured to process multiplexing/demultiplexing of an optical signal (“optical multiplexed signal” 29, 81 and/or “outputs of EMLs” unlabeled; [0175]; FIG. 10);
an optical system (“TxPIC” 10; [0175]; FIG. 10), disposed on the main board (FIG. 10), coupled to the wavelength division multiplexer/demultiplexer ([0175]; FIG. 10), and comprising:
a light source (“DFB lasers” 12, 270; [0175], [0220]) configured to:
generate an input light (a laser is understood to generate light); and
transmit the input light (see FIG. 10 – light source 12 is understood to transmit light to modulator 14; see FIG. 28 – light source 270 is understood to transmit light to modulator 240);
a drive apparatus (“IC modulator driver” 98) configured to:
generate an electrical signal ([0176]); and
transmit the electrical signal ([0176] describes drive apparatus 98 as being used to “drive EA modulators 14 via solder bonding at 90 via their coupling through conductive leads,” which is understood to mean that drive apparatus 98 generates an electrical signal which is transmitted to modulator 14 through conductive circuitry); and
an optical modulator (“Mach-Zehnder modulators” (MZM) 240; [0219] teaches that MZMs may be used in optical system 10 in lieu of the EA modulators 14 shown in FIG. 10; FIG. 28) coupled to the light source FIGs. 10, 28), coupled to the drive apparatus through a circuit path ([0176] explicitly teaches that modulators 14 are coupled to drive apparatus 98, and this coupling constitutes a “circuit path”; FIG. 28 – although a drive apparatus is not explicitly shown connected to modulator 240, modulator 240 is shown as having “drive electrodes,” which implies that a drive apparatus is present), and comprising:
a waveguide layer (“waveguide Q layer” 246; [0221]) configured to receive the input light;
electrodes (“p-side contacts” also called “driver electrodes” 264A and 264B; [0221]; FIG. 28) configured to:
receive, through the circuit path, the electrical signal ([0176]; FIG. 28 – calling electrodes 264A and 264B “driver electrodes” implies they are electrically coupled to a drive apparatus, and this coupling constitutes a “circuit path”);
wherein the optical modulator is configured to modulate the input light based on the electrical signal ([0227]; the examiner also notes that this is simply a description of how optical modulators generally function).
Welch does not explicitly teach first and second optical fibers, and thus Welch does not teach that the optical system is coupled to the wavelength division multiplexer/demultiplexer through the first optical fiber or that the optical modulator is coupled to the light source through the second optical fiber. However, Welch does teach that the optical system provides an optical input to the wavelength division multiplexer/demultiplexer and that the light source provides an optical input to the optical modulator ([0175]). Welch also discloses optical fibers used to transmit optical signals in other parts of the device ([0175], [0179]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose first and second optical fibers to provide the necessary optical links between the optical system and the wavelength division multiplexer/demultiplexer and between the optical modulator and the light source for the purpose of using a suitable type of optical waveguide to form optical interconnections. The selection of a known material (e.g., an optical fiber) based on its suitability for its intended use (e.g., as an optical link between elements of a network device) has been held to be obvious. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Welch does not teach that the optical modulator is in accordance with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Lentine/Halir teaches an optical modulator in accordance with the remaining limitations of the claim (see rejection re. claim 10 above – the examiner notes that the structural limitations of the optical modulator as described in claim 19 are the same the optical modulator described in lines 10-25 of claim 10). The optical modulator taught by Lentine is explicitly disclosed to offer high modulation rates (Col. 1, lines 35-38).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would be obvious to combine the optical modulator of Lentine/Halir with the network device of Welch, thereby rendering obvious instant claim 19. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the optical modulator of Lentine/Halir in the arms of the Mach-Zehnder modulator of Welch (“phase legs or arms” 240A and 240B; [0220]) based on the disclosure of Lentine/Halir that the optical modulator disclosed therein allows for high modulation rates, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as desirable. Simple substitution of one known element (e.g., the optical modulator of Lentine/Halir, which is disclosed to function as a phase modulator, see Col. 2, line 55) for another (e.g., the modulation arms of the MZM of Welch) to obtain predictable results (e.g., to produce a Mach-Zehnder modulator with a phase modulator having high modulation rate) has been held to be obvious. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 20, Welch/Lentine/Halir additionally teaches wherein the sub-wavelength waveguide (Welch 246; Lentine 114.1, 114.2, in combination with the teachings of Halir) further comprises a third side and a fourth side (see annotated FIG. 3 of Lentine above for definition of third and fourth side, the same applies to FIG. 28 of Welch), wherein the waveguide layer further comprises a beam splitter (Lentine 146; see Welch FIG. 28) disposed on the third side and a beam combiner (Lentine 148; see Welch FIG. 28) disposed on the fourth side, wherein the beam splitter is configured to output a second light field (as a Mach-Zehnder modulator (MZM) is generally understood to function, the beam splitter outputs a first light field along one of the arms of the MZM and outputs a second light field along the other of the arms), and wherein the sub-wavelength waveguide is further configured to:
diffuse, into the electro-optical material layer (Lentine 108), the second light field (Lentine Col. 6, lines 33-39 – waveguide 114.2 is optically coupled to layer 108 so that the second light field is diffused and then “captured and confined within” layer 108; see also FIGs. 5A-5B); and
diffuse a third light field at the electro-optical material layer into the beam combiner (Lentine Col. 7, lines 58-64 – as a Mach-Zehnder modulator (MZM) is generally understood to function, the first and second light fields are recombined into a third light field at beam combiner 148).
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL H CALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2286. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Allana Bidder can be reached on 571-272-5560. 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.
/MICHAEL H CALEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2871