DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 20 originally filed 3 October 2022. Claims 1 through 20 are addressed by this action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the provision of “electrical connections to the SAM or SESAM” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4).
The description uses the reference characters "5", "10", "11", "12", "13", "14", "15", "16", and "18" to refer to more than one part each. The same reference character must never be used to designate different parts.
In the present case, these reference characters or similar numbers appear in the following locations: "5" is mentioned in ¶7, ¶27, ¶29, ¶33, ¶38, ¶52, and ¶63, "10" is mentioned in ¶23, ¶25, ¶26, ¶31, ¶36, ¶37, ¶38, ¶40, ¶41, ¶43, ¶45, ¶47, ¶52, ¶58, ¶59, ¶60, ¶62, and ¶63, "11" is mentioned in ¶23, ¶24, ¶28, ¶29, ¶30, ¶37, ¶38, ¶39, ¶40, ¶42, ¶43, ¶45, ¶47, ¶48, ¶50, ¶51, ¶59, and ¶63, "12" is mentioned in ¶23, ¶25, ¶29, ¶30, ¶36, ¶37, ¶44, and ¶63, "13" is mentioned in ¶27, ¶30, ¶36, ¶38, ¶41, and ¶63, "14" is mentioned in ¶27, ¶32, ¶33, ¶34, ¶36, ¶38, ¶39, ¶45, ¶47, ¶50, and ¶63, "15" is mentioned in ¶27 and ¶63, "16" is mentioned in ¶29 and ¶63, and "18" is mentioned in ¶25, ¶27, ¶29, ¶32, ¶48, ¶59, ¶62, and ¶64.
The drawings refer to more than one part each with the reference characters "5", "10", "11", "12", "13", "14", "15", "16", and "23". The same part of an invention must be designated with the same reference character throughout the drawings.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5).
The description includes the reference character "30" which does not appear in the drawings. Reference characters mentioned in the description must appear in the drawings.
In the present case, these reference characters or similar numbers appear in the following locations: "30" is mentioned in ¶59.
The drawings include the reference character "31" which does not appear in the description. Reference characters not mentioned in the description must not appear in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 6, 8, and 19 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 is objected to for employing the units "um". This is considered a typographical error and it is understood that the intended units are "µm".
Claim 6 is objected to for referring to "the piezoelectric transducer" without such a transducer having first been introduced within the priority chain of claim 6. For the remainder of this action, this element will be read as "a piezoelectric transducer" in this instance so as to resolve the antecedent basis for this element.
Claim 8 is objected to for the spelling of the term “dichoic” which appears to be misspelled. This is considered a typographical error with the correct spelling of this term being “dichroic”.
Claim 19 is objected to for employing the units "um". This is considered a typographical error and it is understood that the intended units are "µm".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 through 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, this claim uses the term "pigtail collimator". It is unclear what actual structure is sought to be encompassed by the term "pigtail collimator" because this does not appear to be a term of art. As such, this claim is deemed indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. For the remainder of this action, the term "pigtail collimator" will be understood to encompass any structure that involves both a pigtailed fiber and a collimated output.
Regarding claim 8, this claim requires "A dichoic mirror in a freespace section of the laser cavity to effectuate wavelength division multiplexing (pump light coupling)". However, the term "pump light coupling" is included within a parenthetical note in a manner that does not clearly indicate if it is an example or a requirement. It is not clearly a requirement because wavelength division multiplexing has use outside of pump light coupling. It is also improper to include examples within claim text (MPEP §2173.05d). As such, due to the unclear nature of this parenthetical note, it is determined that this claim is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. For the remainder of this action, the parenthetical note will be treated as a non-limiting example.
Regarding claim 12, this claim requires the use of a SAM or a SESAM and requires "the collimator configured to launch light at an angle substantially normal or perpendicular to a surface of the SESAM". The phrasing of this requirement to only refer to the SESAM rather than the "SAM or SESAM" is inconsistent with the remainder of the claim. Due to this inconsistency, it is unclear if this feature is strictly required because a SAM may be used rather than a SESAM. Further, it is unclear if a SAM may be used and comply with this requirement as this requirement appears to not allow a SAM to be used. As such, this claim is deemed indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. For the remainder of this action, this phrase will be considered as referring to use of a SAM or a SESAM rather than just a SAM.
Regarding claim 13, this claim requires "so that the retro-reflected beam is mostly, if not completely, insensitive to changes in the position of the SAM or SESAM". However, it is not clear what range would meet "mostly, if not completely" in determining the metes and bounds of this claim with respect to the encompassed insensitivity to changes in position. (See also MPEP §2173.05bIII). As such, this claim is deemed indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. For the remainder of this action, this requirement will be to be a functional result inherent to the requirement "Wherein the focusing lens is selected such that translation of the SAM or SESAM is smaller than the Rayleigh range of the focused light" such that any configuration operating within this translation limit would also meet the insensitivity requirement.
Regarding claims 2 through 11, each of these claims depend properly from claim 1 and inherit all limitations thereof. As such, these claims are also deemed indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. For the remainder of this action, these claims will also be interpreted as noted above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claims 13 through 17, each of these claims depend properly from claim 12 and inherit all limitations thereof. As such, these claims are also deemed indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. For the remainder of this action, these claims will also be interpreted as noted above regarding claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12 through 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Lin et al. (Lin, US Patent 6,097,741).
Regarding claim 12, Lin discloses, "A piezoelectric transducer controlled by an applied voltage" (col. 8, lines 58-62). "A SAM or SESAM in association with the piezoelectric transducer" (col. 8, lines 58-62). "Wherein translating a position of the SAM or SESAM back and forth along a mirror travel range adjusts the free space distance to tune the mode locking device" (col. 8, lines 58-62). "An optical fiber in a collimator" (col. 8, lines 35-37 and Fig. 1, pts. 120, 121, and 121a). "The collimator configured to launch light at an angle substantially normal or perpendicular to a surface of the SESAM" (Fig. 1, pts. 121 and 125). "Wherein translation of the collimator enables coarsely tuning a free space optical path length of the mode locking device" (col. 13, lines 8-26 and Fig. 8A, pts. 814, where it is understood that adjustment of the collimator using these screws would inherently alter the cavity path length to some degree). "A focusing lens to focus the light onto the SAM or SESAM" (col. 7, lines 16-31, col. 8, lines 35-45, and Fig. 1, pts. 123, 125, and 126).
Regarding claim 13, Lin discloses, "Wherein the focusing lens is selected such that translation of the SAM or SESAM is smaller than the Rayleigh range of the focused light so that the retro-reflected beam is mostly, if not completely, insensitive to changes in the position of the SAM or SESAM" (col. 7, lines 16-31, col. 8, lines 35-45, and Fig. 1, pts. 123, 125, and 126).
Regarding claim 14, Lin discloses, "At least one of a high-pass filter, low-pass filter, notch filter, bandblock filter, attenuator, electro-optic modulator, polarizer, bulk media, and waveguide" (cols. 10-11, lines 66-2 and Fig. 4A, pt. 122).
Regarding claim 16, Lin discloses, "A polarization-maintaining fiber configuration for the laser light" (col. 4, lines 51-59 and Fig. 1, pts. 121, 130, 140, and 160).
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, 2, 7, 9, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin.
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses, "Altering repetition rate in a mode-locked laser with a mode locking device" (col. 8, lines 46-50 and Fig. 1, pt. 100). "Coupling laser light from a fiber through a pigtail collimator into a cavity" (col. 8, lines 35-37 and Fig. 1, pts. 120, 121, and 121a). "Focusing the laser light to an appropriate spot size onto a SAM or SESAM" (col. 7, lines 16-31, col. 8, lines 35-45, and Fig. 1, pts. 123, 125, and 126). "Wherein fluence at a focused spot closely matches saturation fluence of the SAM or SESAM" (cols. 7-8, lines 58-6). "Changing a position of the SAM or SESAM so as to change an optical path length of a laser cavity" (col. 8, lines 58-62). Lin does not explicitly disclose, "Aligning the lens to maximize back reflection into the fiber." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to align the optics for reinjecting light into the laser fiber such that the reinjection is maximally efficient so as to minimize unnecessary cavity losses, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 2, Lin discloses, "Free space aligning of the focused laser light onto the SAM or SESAM" (Fig. 1, pts. 120, 121, 123, and 125).
Regarding claim 7, Lin discloses, "Providing one or more optical elements in a light path of the mode locking device" (cols. 10-11, lines 66-2 and Fig. 4A, pt. 122). "The optical elements selected from high-pass filters, low-pass filters, bandpass filters, notch filters, attenuators, electro-optic modulators, polarizers, bulk media, and waveguides" (cols. 10-11, lines 66-2 and Fig. 4A, pt. 122).
Regarding claim 9, Lin discloses, "Tuning of an optical pathlength of the cavity by allowing the pigtail collimator to translate over a given range within the cavity" (col. 13, lines 8-26 and Fig. 8A, pts. 814, where it is understood that adjustment of the collimator using these screws would inherently alter the cavity path length to some degree).
Regarding claim 10, Lin discloses, "Providing a polarization-maintaining fiber configuration for the laser light" (col. 4, lines 51-59 and Fig. 1, pts. 121, 130, 140, and 160).
Regarding claim 17, Lin does not explicitly disclose, "Either or both of a thermoelectric cooler and a heating element to control a temperature of the SAM or SESAM." The examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that it was known in the art to employ a thermoelectric cooler or a heater to maintain the temperature of a temperature sensitive element. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a thermoelectric cooler or heating element to maintain the temperature of the saturable absorber, since maintaining the temperature of the saturable absorber ensures fine matching of the saturable absorber to the laser wavelength.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Fermann et al. (F302a, US Pub. 2004/0213302).
Regarding claim 3, Lin does not explicitly disclose, "Mounting the SAM or SESAM onto a piezoelectric transducer to tune the cavity." F302a discloses, "Mounting the SAM or SESAM onto a piezoelectric transducer to tune the cavity" (p. [0105] and Fig. 8B, pts. 823 and 824). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lin with the teachings of F302a. In view of the teachings of Lin regarding the use of a saturable absorber reflector which is designed to move, the particular mounting of the saturable absorber atop the piezoelectric transducer as taught by F302a would enhance the teachings of Lin by providing a mounting arrangement to achieve the cavity length alteration described by Lin.
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Lin and F302a does not explicitly disclose, "Providing a large stroke measured in hundreds of kilohertz and fast response while producing a useful stroke in a range of 1-2 µm for long-term locking." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement operational ranges within these noted operational ranges so as to achieve a desired tuning fidelity and speed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Hemmer et al. (Hemmer, US Patent 5,077,747).
Regarding claim 5, Lin does not explicitly disclose, "A cat's-eye retro-reflector configuration aligning the laser light onto the SAM or SESAM to achieve robust fiber coupling." Hemmer discloses, "A cat's-eye retro-reflector configuration aligning the laser light onto the SAM or SESAM to achieve robust fiber coupling" (col. 2, lines 26-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lin with the teachings of Hemmer. In view of the teachings of Lin regarding the use of an external reflector which is designed to move, the additional inclusion of a cat's eye configuration for the reflector as taught by Hemmer would enhance the teachings of Lin by protecting against angular misalignment.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, in view of F302a, and further in view of Jiang et al. (Jiang, US Pub. 2001/0001006).
Regarding claim 6, Lin does not explicitly disclose, "[The SAM or SESAM] mounted on the piezoelectric transducer." F302a discloses, "[The SAM or SESAM] mounted on the piezoelectric transducer" (p. [0105] and Fig. 8B, pts. 823 and 824). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lin with the teachings of F302a for the reasons provided above regarding claim 3.
The combination of Lin and F302a does not explicitly disclose, "Providing electrical connections to the SAM or SESAM." Jiang discloses, "Providing electrical connections to the SAM or SESAM" (p. [0094]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Lin and F302a with the teachings of Jiang. In view of the teachings of Lin regarding a laser that includes a saturable absorber reflector, the additional inclusion of electrical leads to bias the saturable absorber as taught by Jiang would enhance the teachings of Lin and F302a by allowing the operation of the saturable absorber to be tuned.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Fermann et al. (F848b, US Patent 5,627,848).
Regarding claim 8, Lin does not explicitly disclose, "A dichoic mirror in a freespace section of the laser cavity to effectuate wavelength division multiplexing (pump light coupling)." F848b discloses, "A dichoic mirror in a freespace section of the laser cavity to effectuate wavelength division multiplexing (pump light coupling)" (col. 8, lines 17-19 and Fig. 9, pt. 502). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lin with the teachings of F848b. In view of the teachings of Lin regarding a fiber laser in which pump light is injected via a fiber coupler, the alternate means of injecting pump light through the use of a free space dichroic mirror as taught by F848b would enhance the teachings of Lin by indicating a suitably alternate pump injecting means that may be substituted for the existing pump injection means so as to achieve the predictable result of providing pump power to the laser system.
Regarding claim 15, Lin does not explicitly disclose, "A dichroic mirror in the free space section of the cavity to effectuate wavelength division multiplexing." F848b discloses, "A dichroic mirror in the free space section of the cavity to effectuate wavelength division multiplexing" (col. 8, lines 17-19 and Fig. 9, pt. 502). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lin with the teachings of F848b for the reasons provided above regarding claim 8.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Deichsel et al. (Deichsel, US Patent 6,560,268).
Regarding claim 11, Lin does not explicitly disclose, "Providing independent control of the temperature of the SAM or SESAM." Deichsel discloses, "Providing independent control of the temperature of the SAM or SESAM" (col. 5, lines 37-44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lin with the teachings of Deichsel. In view of the teachings of Lin regarding the use of a saturable absorber mirror by which to produce pulsed laser light, the additional inclusion of a heat sink for controlling the temperature of the saturable absorber as taught by Deichsel would enhance the teachings of Lin by ensuring a constant operating temperature of the saturable absorber and thereby allow fine matching of the saturable absorber to the laser wavelength.
Claims 18 through 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, in view of F302a, and further in view of Hemmer.
Regarding claim 18, Lin discloses, "A piezoelectric material controlled by an applied voltage" (col. 8, lines 58-62). "A SAM or SESAM in association with the piezoelectric material" (col. 8, lines 58-62). "Wherein translating a position of the SAM or SESAM back and forth along a mirror travel range adjusts the free space distance to tune the mode locking device" (col. 8, lines 58-62). "An optical fiber in a collimator" (col. 8, lines 35-37 and Fig. 1, pts. 120, 121, and 121a). "The collimator configured to launch light at an angle substantially normal or perpendicular to a surface of the SESAM" (Fig. 1, pts. 121 and 125). "Wherein translation of the collimator enables coarsely tuning a free space optical path length of the mode locking device" (col. 13, lines 8-26 and Fig. 8A, pts. 814, where it is understood that adjustment of the collimator using these screws would inherently alter the cavity path length to some degree). "A focusing lens to focus the light onto the SAM or SESAM" (col. 7, lines 16-31, col. 8, lines 35-45, and Fig. 1, pts. 123, 125, and 126). Lin does not explicitly disclose, "A mounting block to support the piezoelectric material and/or the SAM or SESAM." F302a discloses, "A mounting block to support the piezoelectric material and/or the SAM or SESAM" (p. [0105] and Fig. 8B, pts. 823 and 824). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lin with the teachings of F302a for the reasons provided above regarding claim 3.
The combination of Lin and F302a does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a cat's eye retroreflector configuration translates a position of the SAM or SESAM without affecting the coupling efficiency." Hemmer discloses, "Wherein a cat's eye retroreflector configuration translates a position of the SAM or SESAM without affecting the coupling efficiency" (col. 2, lines 26-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Lin and F302a with the teachings of Hemmer. In view of the teachings of Lin regarding the use of an external reflector which is designed to move, the additional inclusion of a cat's eye configuration for the reflector as taught by Hemmer would enhance the teachings of Lin and F302a by protecting against angular misalignment.
The combination of Lin, F302a, and Hemmer does not explicitly disclose, "The mounting block dampening vibrations and resonant mechanical modes, thereby increasing the bandwidth of the piezoelectric transducer." The examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that it was known in the art to mount a piezoelectric member to mounting block not intended to move in normal operation such that the motion of the piezoelectric transducer is primarily exerted on the element intended to move. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the piezoelectric transducer to a mounting block, since such a mounting would allow the motive force to be primarily exerted on the element intended to move.
Regarding claim 19, The combination of Lin, F302a, and Hemmer does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the piezoelectric material provides a large stroke measured in hundreds of kilohertz and fast response while producing a useful stroke in a range of 1-2µm for long-term locking." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement operational ranges within these noted operational ranges so as to achieve a desired tuning fidelity and speed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 20, Lin discloses, "At least one of a polarization-maintaining fiber configuration, a heating element on the SAM or SESAM, and a thermoelectric cooler on the SAM or SESAM" (col. 4, lines 51-59 and Fig. 1, pts. 121, 130, 140, and 160). "One or more optical elements selected from high-pass filters, low-pass filters, bandpass filters, notch filters, attenuators, dichroic mirrors, electro-optic modulators, polarizers, bulk media, and waveguides" (cols. 10-11, lines 66-2 and Fig. 4A, pt. 122).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean P Hagan whose telephone number is (571)270-1242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at 571-272-1835. 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.
/SEAN P HAGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2828