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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed 12/15/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The previous 112 rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
With regard to the arguments on pages 8-9 directed towards Deak et al. (Deak) (US 2017/0176545) in view of Close et al. (Close) (US 2021/0199730),
Applicant arguments are all directed to arguments of teaching away, arguing in various ways that the magnetoresistive sensors of Deak cannot be replaced by vertical Hall sensors because they would require a “wholesale redesign” of various components, and because Deak provides advantages specific to magnetoresistive devices. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the Examiner respectfully notes that while applicant argues that a redesign would be required or that the basic principle of operation would be changed, the Examiner respectfully notes that applicant does not present any evidence to support this argument. Much of what applicant argues requires the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, but where attorney argument does not rise to this level (see MPEP 2145(I)). There is no evidence presented that merely changing out a magnetoresistive sensor with a vertical Hall sensor would prevent the combination from functioning as intended or require any of the type of redesigns or reconstruction argued by applicant.
Second, the Examiner respectfully notes that that a vertical Hall sensor and magnetoresistive sensor function in a substantially similar manner, in that both detect magnetic fields parallel to their plane. Substituting various types of magnetic sensors is routine in the art and well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. Even if some redesign was necessary, such redesign would be well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, and such a substitution would be motivated for the reasons stated below. In fact, Close highlights this concept where, in a similar device to that of Deak, Close explains that vertical Hall elements or magneto-resistive element may be used in paragraph [0120]. While applicant argues that Deak and Close are directed towards different sensing principles, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that both references are directed towards using magnetic sensors to detect magnetic fields, including the use of flux concentrators. These devices in fact operate using the same basic sensing principles, and any substitution of one type of sensor for another would not reasonable change the basic operating principle of Deak as both Deak the combination of Deak in view of Close would reasonably be able to detect the magnetic fields intended to be detected in Deak. While one type of sensor may have certain advantageous and disadvantages relative to another, this, respectfully, does not mean that it would not be obvious to interchange or substitute such sensors, as in fact expressly highlighted by Close. In short, a vertical Hall sensor and a magnetoresistive sensor are similar and both would be able to detect the same magnetic field directions disclosed by Deak. As such, no substantially redesign, if any, would be required. Even if some modification would be required, such a modification would be well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, who would be motivated to make such a modification for the reasons stated in the rejection below.
Applicant, respectfully, does not address the fact that Close expressly state that vertical Hall sensors or magnetoresistive sensors can be used for what is a substantially similar purpose to that found in Deak. Close is evidence that regardless of any modifications necessarily to substitute one type of sensor for another, such a substitution would have been obvious and well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to make. Applicant, respectfully, does not present any evidence to rebut the fact that these sensors are art recognized equivalent devices and obvious to be interchanged as evidenced by Close. The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees with applicant.
Third, as to the newly added claim feature, the Examiner respectfully notes that this claim feature is entirely conditional, in that none of the newly added claim features are positively recited. For example, if exposed to a magnetic field that is neither parallel nor perpendicular, then none of the newly added claim features would be invoked. For this reason alone, the prior art reasonably discloses the claim feature when exposed to a magnetic field not parallel or perpendicular as claimed.
Additionally, Claim 1 is an apparatus claim and therefore not directed to the actual use of the device. Such a claim is intended to cover the apparatus itself, and thus cover such a device even when off and not in use. To that point, the prior art would therefore also reasonably disclose the claim feature when the device is not in operation, as it will not be exposed to any magnetic field, and thus not invoke either of the two conditional phrases now added. Applicant is not claiming that the sensors or combination of components are configured such that the sensing directions are as claimed when exposed to the claimed magnetic fields. Instead, applicant is merely stating what the sensing directions will be “when” exposed to the claimed magnetic fields. However, as claimed, the sensing directions are not required to be in any particular direction unless the claimed fields in the claimed directions are present. The prior art therefore reasonably discloses the claim features when the field is not present in the claimed direction.
That stated, the Examiner notes that Deak would reasonably disclose this claim feature. While an issue is raised below regarding the different directions, in light of the disclosure, what applicant is claiming, as best understood, is the manner in which the flux concentrators (magnetic beam detection structures) direct or direct the magnetic fields that are then sensed by the sensors. By placing magnetic sensors are opposing sides of a flux concentrator, a magnetic field in a certain direction will be diverted such that one set of sensors is exposed to a magnetic field that is antiparallel to the other. For example, as disclosed by applicant:
PNG
media_image1.png
328
374
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Here, the arrows parallel to the sensors show the direction of the magnetic field being sensed by the sensors.
However, the Examiner respectfully notes that this is precisely what Deak does as seen below:
PNG
media_image2.png
368
366
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Here it can be seen that, like applicant, when the system is exposed to a perpendicular magnetic field, the sensors also detect magnetic fields in an antiparallel direction, exactly like that disclosed by applicant.
Similarly, when the sensors of Deak are exposed to a parallel magnetic field, they would also detect the parallel magnetic field in the same manner as claimed and disclosed by applicant. This is because Deak discloses a substantially similar magnetic sensor arrangement as applicant. The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees, because Deak reasonably discloses the argued claim features.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-10, 13, and 14 are 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.
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “wherein the sensing direction of the first and second sets of vertical Hall assemblies is parallel to the second direction when exposed to an external magnetic field that is parallel to the second direction and wherein, when exposed to an external magnetic field that is perpendicular to the second and first directions, the sensing direction of the first set of vertical Hall assemblies is parallel to the second direction and the sensing direction of the second set of vertical Hall assemblies is antiparallel to the second direction” in the last two paragraphs introduces new matter.
The Examiner acknowledges that applicant’s intent with the above phrase is likely directed towards the actual directions of the magnetic fields being detected at the sensors. However, there is a difference between the sensing direction of a sensor and the direction of the field it is sensing. Any sensing direction of a sensor is a fixed direction or set of directions based upon the design of a sensor. For example, a horizontal Hall sensor has a fixed sensing direction that is perpendicular to the main sensing surface of the sensor, regardless of the magnetic field it is exposed to. Applicant’s claim bases the actual sensing direction of the sensors upon the direction of a magnetic field they are exposed to, but where such a feature is not originally disclosed. The actual sensing direction or directions of the sensors are fixed and not based upon or controlled by any external magnetic field, and applicant does not reasonably disclose sensors whose sensing directions can be controlled or otherwise changed in this manner. While applicant may intend to refer to the direction of the magnetic field that is sensed and not the sensing direction, because the full scope of the claim reasonably includes a sensing direction that is based on or otherwise controlled by a magnetic field direction, this phrase introduces new matter.
As to Claims 2-10, 13, and 14,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of Claim 1, and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “wherein the sensing direction of the first and second sets of vertical Hall assemblies is parallel to the second direction when exposed to an external magnetic field that is parallel to the second direction and wherein, when exposed to an external magnetic field that is perpendicular to the second and first directions, the sensing direction of the first set of vertical Hall assemblies is parallel to the second direction and the sensing direction of the second set of vertical Hall assemblies is antiparallel to the second direction” in the last two paragraphs is indefinite.
The entirety of the above phrase is based upon a second direction, but where no second direction was previously claimed. More than one direction exists in the disclosure, and a second direction could reasonably be any one of these directions that are not the claimed first direction. As such, the above phrase is indefinite because no second direction was previously claimed, and it is therefore further unclear how any of the above features should be interpreted because all are completely based upon what the second direction is. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the second direction to be a direction perpendicular to the long parallel sides of the magnetic beam deflection structure.
As to Claims 4 and 5,
The phrase “the second direction” on line 3 of Claim 4 and line 2 of Claim 5 is indefinite. As explained above, no second direction was previously claimed, and it is unclear what second direction applicant is referring to with this phrase. For brevity, the reasons this phrase was rejected in Claim 1 above also incorporated into this rejection and asserted against Claims 4 and 5 as well for the same reasons.
As to Claims 2-10, 13, and 14,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of Claim 1, and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deak et al. (Deak) (US 2017/0176545) in view of Close et al. (Close) (US 2021/0199730).
PNG
media_image3.png
442
874
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
368
366
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to Claims 1 and 2,
Deak discloses A three-axis Hall magnetometer which is integrated on a single substrate (1) (Paragraph [0065]), (Figure 1), comprising at least one magnetic beam deflection structure (8 or 10 for Claims 13 and 14) located on a first plane and a plurality of magnetoresistive sensing assemblies (3,4 or 4 and 5 for Claims 13,14) located on a second plane parallel to the first plane (Figures 1,4), and not comprising any planar Hall assembly (no planar halls are used); wherein, each magnetic beam deflection structure is in an elongated shape with two parallel long sides and a length-width ratio greater than 2 (Figures 1,4), and the magnetic beam deflection structure comprises a first set of magnetic beam deflection structures which extend in a first direction on the first plane (up/down direction in Figure 1); wherein, a sensing direction of each magnetoresistive sensing assembly is parallel to the first plane (Figures 1,4), (Paragraphs [0002],[0065] / in order to have an X-axis sensor, the sensor must be sensing in the X-axis and this parallel to the plane); wherein, the plurality of magnetoresistive sensing assemblies comprise a first set of magnetoresistive sensing assemblies (11 or 15 for Claims 13 and 14) and a second set of magnetoresistive sensing assemblies (12 or 16 for Claims 13 and 14) (Paragraph [0065]), each of which has a sensing direction perpendicular to the two parallel long sides of the first set of magnetic beam deflection structures (Figures 1,4 / note the sensing direction X is perpendicular to the long side which is in the Y direction, and note the sensing direction Z is perpendicular to the long side which is in the Y direction ), and the first set of magnetoresistive sensing assemblies are located on a first side of the first set of the magnetic beam deflection structures, and the second set of magnetoresistive sensing assemblies are located on a second side of the first set of the magnetic beam deflection structures (Figures 1,4), (see above figure), wherein the first sides and the second sides of the first set of magnetic beam deflection structures are two opposite sides on which long sides of the first set of magnetic beam deflection structures are located (Figures 1,4); and wherein, the plurality of magnetoresistive sensing assemblies further comprise a third set of vertical magnetoresistive sensing assemblies (13) which having a sensing direction different from those of the first set of magnetoresistive sensing assemblies and the second set of magnetoresistive sensing assemblies (Paragraph [0065] / note the sensing direction for 13 is for a Y-axis sensor), wherein the sensing direction of the first and second sets of vertical Hall assemblies is parallel to the second direction when exposed to an external magnetic field that is parallel to the second direction and wherein, when exposed to an external magnetic field that is perpendicular to the second and first directions, the sensing direction of the first set of vertical Hall assemblies is parallel to the second direction and the sensing direction of the second set of vertical Hall assemblies is antiparallel to the second direction (Figures 1 and 9 / note that the entirety of what is disclosed in these last two paragraphs is a property of the system, and Figure 9 is solely cited as evidence to demonstrate what happens when a magnetic field is a perpendicular magnetic field in the system of Figure 1 to demonstrate that the prior art will disclose the claim features, that stated, the entirety of the last two paragraphs is also conditional and thus not positively recited, and the prior art also discloses the claim features when these conditions are not invoked and the magnetic field is either not present or in a direction not claimed), the magnetic beam deflection structure also comprises a second set of magnetic beam deflection structures (9) (Figure 1), (Paragraph [0065]), a long axis of each of which extends along a second direction different from the first direction on the first plane (Figure 1); the plurality of magnetoresistive sensing assemblies also comprise a fourth set of vertical magnetoresistive sensing assemblies (14) located near one long side of the second set of the magnetic beam deflection structures and having a sensing direction perpendicular to the two parallel long sides of the second set of the magnetic beam deflection structures (Figure 1), (Paragraph [0065] / note sensing elements (13,14)), and the third set of the magnetoresistive sensing assemblies is located on a first side of the second set of the magnetic beam deflection structures and the fourth set of the magnetoresistive sensing assemblies is located on a second side of the second set of the magnetic beam deflection structures (Figure 1), (see above figure which also applies to structures 9), wherein the first sides and the second sides of the second-type magnetic beam deflection structures are two opposite sides on which long sides of the second set of the magnetic beam deflection structures are located (Figure 1).
Deak does not disclose using vertical Hall assemblies instead of magnetoresistive sensing assemblies.
Close discloses that it is known to use vertical Hall elements or magnetoresistive elements such as XMR or GMR elements in the magnetic field sensing art.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Deak to include vertical Hall assemblies instead of magnetoresistive sensing assemblies given the above disclosure and teaching of Close because these devices have been demonstrated to be art recognized equivalent devices (see MPEP 2144.06), and in order to utilize a more cost-effective sensing device that can also detected higher currents or stronger magnetic fields.
As to Claim 3,
Deak discloses wherein the magnetic beam deflection structure is composed of a magnetic material with a relative permeability greater than 100 (Paragraph [0066] / note Fe for example which has a relative permeability of at least 5000).
As to Claim 4,
Deak in view of Close discloses wherein each of the plurality of vertical Hall assemblies is separated from the first set of magnetic beam deflection structures in the second direction by an electrical insulating layer (Paragraphs [0036]-[0041] / note insulation layers I-IV are deposited on the magnetoresistive sensing elements, and then the soft magnetic material (deflection beams) are formed above the insulation layers), and the first set of the vertical Hall assemblies are separated from the second set of the vertical Hall assemblies in a direction on the second plane (Figures 1,4 / note the sensors of Deak are separated from each other both in a column and on opposite sides of a beam in a similar manner as applicant).
As to Claim 5,
Deak discloses wherein the first direction and the second direction are perpendicular to each other (Figure 1 / note the X and Y axis are perpendicular).
As to Claim 6,
Deak in view of Close discloses wherein a quantity of the first set of the magnetic beam deflection structures and a quantity of the second set of the magnetic beam deflection structures are both two (Figure 1 / note there are plural X-axis beams and Y-axis beams), wherein the first set of the vertical Hall assemblies are located on the first side of one of the first set of magnetic beam deflection structures, the second set of the vertical Hall assemblies are located on the second side of another one of the first set of the magnetic beam deflection structures, the third set of the vertical Hall assemblies are located on the first side of one of second set of the magnetic beam deflection structures, and the fourth set of the vertical Hall assemblies are located on the second side of another one of second set of the second-type magnetic beam deflection structures (Figures 1,4 / note the sensors of Deak are separated from each other both in a column and on opposite sides of a beam in a similar manner as applicant, and thus the sensors / Hall assemblies are positioned with respect to the beams in a similar manner as disclosed by applicant and as claimed).
As to Claim 7,
Deak in view of Close discloses wherein a quantity of the third set of the vertical Hall assemblies and a quantity of the fourth set of the vertical Hall assemblies are both more than one (Figures 1,4 / note there are plural third and fourth type sensors on either side of a respective at least one beam in the Y axis direction), wherein the third set of the vertical Hall assemblies are arranged along the long side on the first side of the second set of the magnetic beam deflection structure, and the fourth set of the vertical Hall assemblies are arranged along the long side on the second side of the second set of the magnetic beam deflection structure (Figures 1,4 / note the sensors of Deak are separated from each other both in a column and on opposite sides of a beam in a similar manner as applicant, and Deak therefore discloses plural third and fourth type Hall assemblies positioned as claimed).
As to Claim 8,
Deak in view of Close discloses wherein there are an even number of the plurality of vertical Hall assemblies coupled and connected among the third set of the vertical Hall assemblies or the fourth set of the vertical Hall assemblies; or, at least one of the third set of the vertical Hall assemblies and at least one of the fourth set of the vertical Hall assemblies are coupled and connected as a group, and another at least one of the third set of the vertical Hall assemblies and another at least one of the fourth set of the vertical Hall assemblies are also coupled and connected as a group, wherein quantities of the third set of the vertical Hall assemblies and the fourth set of the vertical Hall assemblies coupled and connected in each group are equal (Paragraphs [0065],[0068] / note the bridges are identically formed except for the sensing direction, and a full-bridge requires four arms, each set of arms including one reference and one sensing arms, and where each set / half-bridge can be one of the above claimed groups, and note there are an equal number of elements between the third and fourth-type sensors).
As to Claim 9,
Deak in view of Close discloses wherein a quantity of first set of the vertical Hall assemblies and a quantity of second set of the vertical Hall assemblies are both more than one (Figures 1,4 / note there are plural first and second type sensors on either side of a respective at least one beam in the X axis direction), wherein the first set of the vertical Hall assemblies are arranged along the long side on the first side of the first set of the magnetic beam deflection structures, and the second set of the vertical Hall assemblies are arranged along the long side on the second side of the first set of the magnetic beam deflection structures (Figures 1,4 / note the sensors of Deak are separated from each other both in a column and on opposite sides of a beam in a similar manner as applicant, and Deak therefore discloses plural third and fourth type Hall assemblies positioned as claimed).
As to Claim 10,
Deak in view of Close discloses wherein there are an even number of the plurality of the vertical Hall assemblies coupled and connected among first set of the vertical Hall assemblies or second set of the vertical Hall assemblies; or, at least one of the first set of the vertical Hall assemblies and at least one of the second set of the vertical Hall assemblies are coupled and connected as a group, and another at least one of the first set of the vertical Hall assemblies and another at least one of the second set of the vertical Hall assemblies are also coupled and connected as a group, wherein quantities of the first set of the vertical Hall assemblies and the second set of the vertical Hall assemblies coupled and connected in each group are equal (Paragraphs [0065],[0068] / note the bridges are identically formed except for the sensing direction, and a full-bridge requires four arms, each set of arms including one reference and one sensing arms, and where each set / half-bridge can be one of the above claimed groups, and note there are an equal number of elements between the first and second-type sensors).
As to Claim 13,
Deak in view of Close discloses wherein a quantity of the first set of magnetic beam deflection structures is one (Figure 1 / note each beam structure 10 can be its own set), and wherein each of the first set of the vertical Hall assemblies, the second set of the vertical Hall assemblies, and the first set of the magnetic beam deflection structures share an axis of symmetry parallel to the long sides of the first set of the magnetic beam deflection structures and passing through a center of the first set of the magnetic beam deflection structures (Figures 1,9 / note the set of sensors 15 and 16 are symmetrically placed with respect to a center line passing through the center of a beam structure 10), (Paragraph [0065]).
As to Claim 14,
Deak in view of Close discloses wherein a quantity of the first set of magnetic beam deflection structures is two (Figure 1 / any two flux guides (10) can be a set), and wherein each of the first set of the vertical Hall assemblies, the second set of the vertical Hall assemblies, and the first set of the magnetic beam deflection structures are parallel to the long sides of both of the first set of the magnetic beam deflection structures (Figures 1,9 / note the set of sensors 15 and 16 are symmetrically placed with respect to a center line passing through the center of a beam structure 10, to the extent that applicant intends the axis to cut perpendicular to the structures in the middle of the structures, such an axis can be said to exist in Deak as the sensor elements and structures are reasonably symmetric with respect to an axis passing in the left/right direction through the middle of the structures), (Paragraph [0065]).
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 DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858