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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4-5, 10-11, 20-21, and 27-28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/18/2025.
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 2-3 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. Claim 2 recites “a longitudinal trench displaced from and extending substantially along a length the plurality of vias.” The term "substantially" is a relative term which renders the claim 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 the minimum length that the longitudinal trench must be in order to be considered “substantially extending along the length of the plurality of vias”. The term “substantially” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “substantially” the target any more. 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. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Therefore, the claim is rejected 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.
Claim 3 is 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. Claim 2 recites “a plurality of transverse trenches filled with the magnetic material and extending generally perpendicular to the longitudinal trench.” The term "generally" is a relative term which renders the claim 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. “Generally” is defined as "in a general manner” (see Merriam Webster online dictionary). This language is indefinite as the specification does not describe how far the transverse trenches can deviate from perpendicular to the longitudinal trench in order to be considered “extending generally perpendicular to the longitudinal trench”. The term “generally” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “generally” the target any more. 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. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Therefore, the claim is rejected 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.
Claims 7-9,12-16 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. Claim 7 recites “a via structure disposed through the substrate and extending generally parallel to both the first row of vias and the second row of vias.” The term "generally" is a relative term which renders the claim 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. “Generally” is defined as "in a general manner” (see Merriam Webster online dictionary). This language is indefinite as the specification does not describe how far the via structure can deviate from parallel to the first and second rows of vias in order to be considered “extending generally parallel to the first and second rows of vias”. The term “generally” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “generally” the target any more. 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. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Therefore, the claim is rejected 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.
Claims 8-9 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. Claim 8 recites “a longitudinal trench displaced from and extending substantially along a length of the first row of vias and the second row of vias.” The term "substantially" is a relative term which renders the claim 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 the minimum length that the longitudinal trench must be in order to be considered “substantially extending along the length of the first and second rows of vias”. The term “substantially” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “substantially” the target any more. 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. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Therefore, the claim is rejected 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.
Claim 9 is 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. Claim 2 recites “a plurality of transverse trenches filled with the magnetic material and extending generally perpendicular to the longitudinal trench.” The term "generally" is a relative term which renders the claim 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. “Generally” is defined as "in a general manner” (see Merriam Webster online dictionary). This language is indefinite as the specification does not describe how far the transverse trenches can deviate from perpendicular to the longitudinal trench in order to be considered “extending generally perpendicular to the longitudinal trench”. The term “generally” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “generally” the target any more. 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. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Therefore, the claim is rejected 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.
Claims 18-19 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. Claim 18 recites “a longitudinal trench displaced from and extending substantially along a length the plurality of vias.” The term "substantially" is a relative term which renders the claim 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 the minimum length that the longitudinal trench must be in order to be considered “substantially extending along the length of the plurality of vias”. The term “substantially” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “substantially” the target any more. 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. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Therefore, the claim is rejected 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.
Claim 19 is 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. Claim 2 recites “a plurality of transverse trenches filled with the magnetic material and extending generally perpendicular to the longitudinal trench.” The term "generally" is a relative term which renders the claim 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. “Generally” is defined as "in a general manner” (see Merriam Webster online dictionary). This language is indefinite as the specification does not describe how far the transverse trenches can deviate from perpendicular to the longitudinal trench in order to be considered “extending generally perpendicular to the longitudinal trench”. The term “generally” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “generally” the target any more. 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. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Therefore, the claim is rejected 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, 12-19, 22-23, 25-26, 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2014/0159851 A1 (Mano).
Re claim 1, Mano teaches a device including an inductor (inductor device 10), the inductor comprising:
a substrate (core base 24);
a plurality of vias (through-hole conductor 36) disposed through the substrate and filled with a conductive metal;
a via structure (built in magnetic substance 21) disposed through the substrate and extending between the plurality of vias, wherein the via structure is filled with a magnetic material to form a magnetic core of the inductor ([0068]); and
one or more patterned metallization layers (first and second conductive patterns 58F, 58S) interconnecting the conductive metal of the plurality of vias;
wherein the one or more patterned metallization layers and the conductive metal filling the plurality of vias form a winding of the inductor about the magnetic core (Figs. 19-21).
PNG
media_image1.png
492
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
666
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 2, Mano teaches wherein the via structure comprises: a longitudinal trench displaced from and extending substantially along a length the plurality of vias (Figs. 19-21).
Re claim 3, Mano teaches a wherein the inductor further comprises: a plurality of transverse trenches filled with the magnetic material and extending generally perpendicular to the longitudinal trench (Fig. 21).
PNG
media_image3.png
666
460
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re claim 6, Mano teaches wherein the device comprises at least one of: a music player; a video player; an entertainment unit; a navigation device; a communications device; a mobile device; a mobile phone; a smartphone; a personal digital assistant; a fixed location terminal; a tablet computer, a computer; a wearable device; a laptop computer; a server; an internet of things (IoT) device; or a device in an automotive vehicle (Examiner takes official notice that as the inductor is formed in a PCB and printed circuit boards are chip mounts and chips are used in all listed devices of this claim).
Re claim 7, Mano teaches a device including an inductor (inductor device 10), the inductor comprising:
a substrate (core base 24) having a first planar surface and a second planar surface opposite the first planar surface;
a first row of vias (top through-hole conductors 36 Fig. 21) disposed through the substrate and filled with a conductive metal;
a second row of vias (bottom through-hole conductor 36 Fig. 21) disposed through the substrate and filled with the conductive metal, wherein the second row of vias is laterally displaced from the first row of vias (Fig. 21);
a via structure (built in magnetic substance 21) disposed through the substrate and extending generally parallel to both the first row of vias and the second row of vias, the via structure being filled with a magnetic material to form a magnetic core of the inductor that is electrically insulated from the conductive metal filling the first row of vias and the conductive metal filling the second row of vias;
a first patterned metallization layer (first conductive patterns 58F) exterior to the first planar surface and interconnecting the conductive metal of each via of the first row of vias with the conductive metal of a corresponding via of the second row of vias; and
a second patterned metallization layer (second conductive patterns 58S) exterior to the second planar surface and interconnecting the conductive metal of each via of the first row of vias with the conductive metal of a corresponding via of the second row of vias;
wherein the first patterned metallization layer, the second patterned metallization layer, the conductive metal filling the first row of vias, and conductive metal filling the second row of vias form a winding of the inductor about the magnetic core (Figs. 19-21).
PNG
media_image1.png
492
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
666
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 8, Mano teaches a wherein the via structure comprises: a longitudinal trench displaced from and extending substantially along a length of the first row of vias and the second row of vias (Figs. 19-21).
Re claim 9, Mano teaches a wherein the inductor further comprises: a plurality of transverse trenches filled with the magnetic material and extending generally perpendicular to the longitudinal trench (Fig. 21).
PNG
media_image3.png
666
460
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re claim 12, Mano teaches wherein: the magnetic material is not electrically conductive (magnetic particles in resin [0057]).
Re claim 13, Mano teaches wherein: the first patterned metallization layer is formed on the first planar surface of the substrate; and the second patterned metallization layer is formed on the second planar surface of the substrate (Fig. 19).
Re claim 14, Mano teaches the inductor further comprising:
a first patterned insulating layer (resin insulation layers 50F) overlying the first planar surface of the substrate to electrically insulate the magnetic material filling the via structure from the first patterned metallization layer, the first patterned insulating layer having openings filled with the conductive metal to connect the first row of vias and second row of vias with the first patterned metallization layer; and
a second patterned insulating layer (resin insulation layers 50S) overlying the second planar surface and electrically insulating the magnetic material filling the via structure from the first patterned metallization layer, the first patterned insulating layer having openings filled with the conductive metal to connect the first row of vias and second row of vias with the first patterned metallization layer.
Re claim 15, Mano teaches wherein:
the first row of vias is aligned along a first longitudinal axis of the substrate;
the second row of vias is aligned along a second longitudinal axis of the substrate parallel to the first longitudinal axis; and
the via structure extends along a third longitudinal axis of the substrate parallel to both the first longitudinal axis and second longitudinal axis (Fig. 21).
Re claim 16, Mano teaches wherein the device comprises at least one of: a music player; a video player; an entertainment unit; a navigation device; a communications device; a mobile device; a mobile phone; a smartphone; a personal digital assistant; a fixed location terminal; a tablet computer, a computer; a wearable device; a laptop computer; a server; an internet of things (IoT) device; or a device in an automotive vehicle (Examiner takes official notice that as the inductor is formed in a PCB and printed circuit boards are chip mounts and chips are used in all listed devices of this claim).
Re claim 17, Mano teaches a method of fabricating an inductor (inductor device 10), comprising:
forming a plurality of vias (through-hole conductors 36) disposed through a substrate (core base 24) and filled with a conductive metal;
forming a via structure (built in magnetic substance 21) disposed through the substrate and filled with a magnetic material, the via structure extending between the plurality of vias and forming a magnetic core of the inductor; and
forming one or more patterned metallization layers (first and second conductive patterns 58F, 58S) interconnecting the conductive metal of the plurality of vias;
wherein the one or more patterned metallization layers and the conductive metal filling the plurality of vias form a winding of the inductor about the magnetic core (Figs. 19-21).
Re claim 18, Mano teaches wherein the via structure comprises: a longitudinal trench displaced from and extending substantially along a length the plurality of vias (Figs. 19-21).
Re claim 19, Mano teaches forming a plurality of transverse trenches filled with the magnetic material and extending generally perpendicular to the longitudinal trench (Fig. 21)
PNG
media_image3.png
666
460
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re claim 22, Mano teaches a method of fabricating an inductor (inductor device 10), comprising:
forming a first row of vias (top through-hole conductors 36 in Fig. 21) through a substrate (core base 24);
forming a second row of vias (bottom through-hole conductors 36 in Fig. 21) through the substrate, wherein the second row of vias is laterally displaced from the first row of vias;
forming a via structure (built in magnetic substance 21) through the substrate extending generally parallel to both the first row of vias and the second row of vias;
filling the first row of vias and the second row of vias with a conductive metal;
filling the via structure with a magnetic material;
forming a first patterned metallization layer (first conductive patterns 58F) exterior to a first planar surface of the substrate to electrically interconnect the conductive metal of each via of the first row of vias with the conductive metal of a corresponding via of the second row of vias; and
forming a second patterned metallization layer (second conductive patterns 58S) exterior to a second planar surface of the substrate opposite the first planar surface to electrically interconnect the conductive metal of each via of the first row of vias with the conductive metal of a corresponding via of the second row of vias;
wherein the first patterned metallization layer, the second patterned metallization layer, the conductive metal filling the first row of vias, and conductive metal filling the second row of vias form a winding of the inductor about a magnetic core formed by the magnetic material in the via structure (method steps shown in Figs. 22A-23B).
Re claim 23, Mano teaches wherein: the first row of vias and the second row of vias are formed concurrently during a processing operation (Fig. 23).
Re claim 25, Mano teaches wherein forming the via structure comprises: forming a longitudinal trench displaced from and extending substantially along a length of the first row of vias and the second row of vias (Figs. 19-24).
Re claim 26, Mano teaches forming a plurality of transverse trenches extending generally perpendicular to the longitudinal trench; and filling the plurality of transverse trenches with the magnetic material (Figs. 19-23B).
Re claim 29, Mano teaches further comprising:
forming a first patterned insulating layer (resin insulation layers 50F) overlying the first planar surface of the substrate wherein the first patterned insulating layer is patterned to electrically insulate the magnetic material filling the via structure from the first patterned metallization layer while leaving openings over the first row of vias and the second row of vias;
filling the openings of the first patterned insulating layer with the conductive metal to connect the conductive metal filling the first row of vias with the conductive metal filling the second row of vias with the first patterned metallization layer;
forming a second patterned insulating layer (resin insulation layers 50S) overlying the second planar surface of the substrate wherein the second patterned insulating layer is patterned to electrically insulate the magnetic material filling the via structure from the second patterned metallization layer while leaving openings over the first row of vias and the second row of vias; and
filling the openings of the first patterned insulating layer with the conductive metal to connect the conductive metal filling the first row of vias with the conductive metal filling the second row of vias with the first patterned metallization layer (Figs. 19-23B)
Re claim 30, Mano teaches wherein:
the first row of vias is aligned along a first longitudinal axis of the substrate;
the second row of vias is aligned along a second longitudinal axis of the substrate parallel to the first longitudinal axis; and
the via structure extends along a third longitudinal axis of the substrate parallel to both the first longitudinal axis and second longitudinal axis (Fig. 21).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2014/0159851 A1 (Mano).
Re claim 24, Mano teaches the method of claim 23, however, Mano does not explicitly teach wherein: the via structure is formed during the processing operation concurrently with the first row of vias and the second row of vias. However, the courts have found that a change in process sequence is prima facie obvious when the structural result is the same MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C). Mano teaches a sequential order to the fabrication of the through vias for the winding and the via structure of the magnetic core and Applicant has provided no disclosure supporting the criticality of the winding and core manufacturing being performed concurrently. Therefore, Examiner takes the position that in the absence of any teaching of criticality of the concurrent processing requirement and the courts finding of obviousness of changes in process sequences that Mano sufficiently teaches the requirements of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIGITTE A PATERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1752. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
BRIGITTE A. PATERSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/BRIGITTE A PATERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896