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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “a magnetic device configured to be suspended over the XY stage such that relative movement between the magnetic device and the Hall Effect sensor can be effected” as described in the specification. There is/are no drawing(s) that show how the magnetic device is being suspended over the XY stage. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 line 5, “the XY stage” ---, should be corrected to ---, “the automated XY stage” ---.
In claim 1 line 6, “effected” --, should be corrected to --, “affected” --.
In claim 1 line 8, “effected” --, should be corrected to --, “affected” --.
In claim 1 line 5, “the XY stage” ---, should be corrected to ---, “the automated XY stage” ---.
In claim 11 line 7, “effected” --, should be corrected to --, “affected” --.
In claim 11 line 9, “effected” --, should be corrected to --, “affected” --.
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 1-3 and 5-19 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 1 line 5 recites “a magnetic device configured to be suspended over the XY stage such that relative movement between the magnetic device and the Hall Effect sensor can be effected”, which raises the question; what is the physical definition of “suspended over” in terms of the location of the magnetic device with respect to the XY stage, because nothing in the specification explains how the magnetic device is physically above the Hall sensor. In other words, if the XY stage is holding the Hall sensor, what is holding the magnetic device above the Hall sensor? Therefore, for the sake of examination the above limitation is interpreted as --- "a magnetic device is configured to be within the proximity of the Hall Effect sensor” ---.
Claims 2–3 and 5–19 inherit the same deficiency as claim 1.
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 1-2 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Byers et al (US Patent No. 4908577).
Regarding claim 1, Byers teaches a system (i.e., system 100; fig. 5) for locating (i.e., locating the Hall element 84 with respect to the magnetic element 28; fig. 4) a Hall Effect sensor assembly (i.e., Hall Effect sensor assembly as the Hall element 84 and the magnetic element 28; fig. 4), the system comprising: an automated XY stage (i.e., applicant discloses the XY stage as any tool, jig, or support structure for the Hall sensor element; therefore, the examiner interprets the circuit board 72 as the XY stage as it supports the hall sensor element 84; fig. 4) configured to hold a Hall Effect sensor (i.e., element 84; fig. 4) of the Hall Effect sensor assembly; a magnetic device (i.e., magnetic device 28; fig. 4) configured to be suspended over the XY stage (implicit, as seen in fig. 4) such that relative movement (i.e., relative movement in direction of travel; figs. 3-4) between the magnetic device and the Hall Effect sensor can be effected (i.e., Hall element 84 is affected by magnetic flux generated by the magnetic element 28 in loop T and loop R; fig. 4); and a processor (i.e., processor 104; fig. 5) configured to: query (i.e., detects; fig. 5) the Hall Effect sensor as the relative movement is effected (implicit, as seen in fig. 5); monitor an output (i.e., output interfaces; fig. 5) of the Hall Effect sensor in response to the query (implicit, as seen in fig. 5); and identify (i.e., identify a maximum signal corresponding to the minimum spacing between mounting plates 82 and a shading pole piece 28, i.e., the target gap 68; fig. 4) a functional center (i.e., these functions in order, the production of compensated or corrected gap and displacement information is first reviewed. As will be appreciated, the Hall-effect potentials produced by the various pickups 84 in a given sensor assembly 66 is a function of a number of factors other than gap and relative position, then the assembly 66 is most nearly aligned with the center of the adjacent pole piece 28 at some time t.sub.1 /2; fig. 4) of the Hall Effect sensor assembly based on a peak (i.e., The "peak" portions of this periodic data correspond to the stable data flagged by microprocessor 104; fig. 5) of the output of the Hall Effect sensor (implicit, as seen in fig. 5).
Regarding claim 2, Byers teaches the system of claim 1, the system further being configured to mark (i.e., mark/adjust/calibrate/align the positioning points 66 on the circuit board 72 based on the data retained by microprocessor 104 in RAM 108; fig. 5) the Hall Effect sensor assembly thereby forming a feature positioned (i.e., feature positioned points of 66 on the circuit board 72 to form the map/pattern of the Hall sensor assembly; fig. 3) on the Hall Effect sensor assembly according to the functional center of the Hall Effect sensor assembly (e.g., If greater accuracy in the determination of relative position is required, a historical profile of the corrected resultant signal data corresponding to each sensor assembly 66 is retained by microprocessor 104 in RAM 108. As will be appreciated, the data for each assembly 66 exhibits a periodic pattern and the data for adjacent assemblies 66 exhibits periodic patterns that are effectively shifted in time. The "peak" portions of this periodic data correspond to the stable data flagged by microprocessor 104. If the flagged data remains stable for some time t.sub.1, then the assembly 66 is most nearly aligned with the center of the adjacent pole piece 28 at some time t.sub.1 /2. Microprocessor 104 can identify this point on currently produced data, in real time, by interpolation, using information concerning the historical periodic pattern data stored in RAM 108 along with the current velocity of vehicle 14. As a result, accuracy is improved; Col. 7 lines 30+).
Regarding claim 11, Byers teaches the system of claim 1, the system further being configured to mark (i.e., mark/adjust/calibrate/align the positioning points 66 on the circuit board 72 based on the data retained by microprocessor 104 in RAM 108; fig. 5) the Hall Effect sensor assembly thereby forming a feature positioned (i.e., feature positioned points of 66 on the circuit board 72 to form the map/pattern of the Hall sensor assembly; fig. 3) on the Hall Effect sensor assembly according to the functional center of the Hall Effect sensor assembly (e.g. If greater accuracy in the determination of relative position is required, a historical profile of the corrected resultant signal data corresponding to each sensor assembly 66 is retained by microprocessor 104 in RAM 108. As will be appreciated, the data for each assembly 66 exhibits a periodic pattern and the data for adjacent assemblies 66 exhibits periodic patterns that are effectively shifted in time. The "peak" portions of this periodic data correspond to the stable data flagged by microprocessor 104. If the flagged data remains stable for some time t.sub.1, then the assembly 66 is most nearly aligned with the center of the adjacent pole piece 28 at some time t.sub.1 /2. Microprocessor 104 can identify this point on currently produced data, in real time, by interpolation, using information concerning the historical periodic pattern data stored in RAM 108 along with the current velocity of vehicle 14. As a result, accuracy is improved; fig. 5). And, for the rest of the limitations/features in claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons that have already been stated/discussed above in rejected claim 1. {See rejection of claim 1}
Regarding claim 12, Byers teaches the system of claim 11, the system further comprising a marking device (i.e., microprocessor 104 acts as a marking device by storing the historical profile of the corrected resultant signal data corresponding to each sensor assembly 66 in RAM 108; fig. 5) configured to mark the Hall Effect sensor assembly (implicit, as seen fig. 5).
Claims 1-2 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by David et al (US Publication No. 20090085558).
Regarding claim 1, David teaches a system (i.e., system 100; fig. 7) for locating (i.e., locating the Hall element 70 with respect to the magnetic element 18; fig. 5) a Hall Effect sensor assembly (i.e., Hall Effect sensor assembly as the Hall element 70 and the magnetic element 18; fig. 5), the system comprising: an automated XY stage (i.e., circuit board 92; fig. 5) configured to hold a Hall Effect sensor (i.e., Hall Effect sensor 70; fig. 5) of the Hall Effect sensor assembly; a magnetic device (i.e., magnetic device 18; fig. 5) configured to be suspended over the XY stage (implicit, as seen in fig. 5) such that relative movement (i.e., relative movement; fig. 5) between the magnetic device and the Hall Effect sensor can be affected (i.e., Hall element 70 is affected by magnetic flux generated by the magnetic element 18 in axis North and axis South; fig. 5); and a processor (i.e., processor 114; fig. 7) configured to: query (i.e., detect; fig. 7) the Hall Effect sensor as the relative movement is affected (implicit, as seen in fig. 5); monitor an output (i.e., output; fig. 7) of the Hall Effect sensor in response to the query (implicit, as seen fig. 7); and identify (i.e., identify as determine; para. [0042]) a functional center (i.e., to linearize actuator transfer function non-linearities in the camera focus module, the biasing plate 92 causes the magnet 18 to be centered over the coil/device structure 94 ("center position", indicated by reference numeral 98a); para. [0032]) of the Hall Effect sensor assembly based on a peak (i.e., the contrast value that is a peak value is detected and sends a detection signal to the controller 102; para. [0037]) of the output of the Hall Effect sensor (implicit, as seen in fig. 7).
Regarding claim 2, David teaches the system of claim 1, the system further being configured to mark (i.e., mark/adjust/calibrate positioning motions 98a-98c pattern on the circuit board 92 via block 102; fig. 7) the Hall Effect sensor assembly thereby forming a feature positioned (i.e., feature positioned as the positioning motions 98a-98c pattern on the circuit board 92; fig. 6) on the Hall Effect sensor assembly according to the functional center of the Hall Effect sensor assembly (implicit, as seen fig. 6).
Regarding claim 11, David teaches the system of claim 1, the system further being configured to mark (i.e., mark/adjust/calibrate positioning motions 98a-98c pattern on the circuit board 92 via block 102; fig. 7) the Hall Effect sensor assembly thereby forming a feature positioned (i.e., feature positioned as the positioning motions 98a-98c pattern on the circuit board 92; fig. 6) on the Hall Effect sensor assembly according to the functional center of the Hall Effect sensor assembly (implicit, as seen fig. 6). And, for the rest of the limitations/features in claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons that have already been stated/discussed above in rejected claim 1. {See rejection of claim 1}
Regarding claim 12, David teaches the system of claim 11, the system further comprising a marking device (i.e., controller 102 acts as a marking device by storing the historical profile of the corrected resultant signal data corresponding to each motion frame of the sensor assembly 90 in the frame memory 116; fig. 7) configured to mark the Hall Effect sensor assembly (implicit, as seen fig. 7).
Claims 1-2 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Taylor (US Publication No. 20130154624).
Regarding claim 1, Taylor teaches a system (i.e., system 10; fig. 2) for locating (i.e., locating the Hall element 425 with respect to the magnetic element 410; fig. 4) a Hall Effect sensor assembly (i.e., Hall Effect sensor assembly as the Hall element 425 and the magnetic element 410; fig. 4), the system comprising: an automated XY stage (i.e., automated XY stage as the circuit board 415; fig. 4) configured to hold a Hall Effect sensor (i.e., Hall Effect sensor 425; fig. 4) of the Hall Effect sensor assembly; a magnetic device (i.e., magnetic device 410; fig. 4) configured to be suspended over the XY stage (implicit, as seen in fig. 4) such that relative movement (i.e., relative movement in X-axis and Y-axis; fig. 4) between the magnetic device and the Hall Effect sensor can be affected (i.e., the Hall-Effect sensor 425 is affected by the generated magnetic flux from the magnetic element 410; fig. 4); and a processor (i.e., processor 250; fig. 2) configured to: query (i.e., detect; fig. 2) the Hall Effect sensor as the relative movement is affected (implicit, as seen in fig. 2); monitor an output (i.e., output; fig. 2) of the Hall Effect sensor in response to the query (implicit, as seen in fig. 2); and identify (i.e., identify; fig. 7) a functional center (i.e., the unit performing specific functions. Based on the magnetic flux sensed by each of the magnetic sensors 420, the controller 200 can determine a center of a magnetic sensor path (e.g., a centerline of the plurality of magnets 445) within the detected area 440; para. [0031]) of the Hall Effect sensor assembly based on a peak (i.e., the sensor 420 will detect a maximum or peak magnetic flux from the permanent magnet 410; para. [0031]) of the output of the Hall Effect sensor (implicit, as seen in fig. 4).
Regarding claim 2, Taylor teaches the system of claim 1, the system further being configured to mark (i.e., mark/map/point positioning map points in fig. 5 pattern on the circuit board 415 for the Hall element 425 and positioning map points in fig. 6 pattern for the magnetic element 410 via block 250; fig. 2) the Hall Effect sensor assembly thereby forming a feature positioned (i.e., feature positioned pattern fig. 5 and pattern fig. 6) on the Hall Effect sensor assembly according to the functional center of the Hall Effect sensor assembly (implicit, as seen in fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, Taylor teaches the system of claim 1, the system further being configured to mark (i.e., mark/map/point positioning map points in fig. 5 pattern on the circuit board 415 for the Hall element 425 and positioning map points in fig. 6 pattern for the magnetic element 410 via block 250; fig. 2) the Hall Effect sensor assembly thereby forming a feature positioned (i.e., feature positioned pattern fig. 5 and pattern fig. 6) on the Hall Effect sensor assembly according to the functional center of the Hall Effect sensor assembly (implicit, as seen in fig. 4). And, for the rest of the limitations/features in claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons that have already been stated/discussed above in rejected claim 1. {See rejection of claim 1}
Regarding claim 12, Taylor teaches the system of claim 11, the system further comprising a marking device (i.e., processing unit 250 acts as a marking device by storing the historical profile of the corrected resultant signal data corresponding to the map/pattern of the Hall element 425 and the magnetic element 410 in memory 255; fig. 2) configured to mark the Hall Effect sensor assembly (implicit, as seen fig. 4).
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.
Claims 3, 5 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byers et al (US Patent No. 4908577) in view of Litvinov et al (US Publication No. 20100188075).
Regarding claim 3, Byers teaches the system of claim 2.
Byers does not teach the system further comprising a laser configured to laser etch the Hall Effect sensor assembly to form the feature.
Litvinov teaches in a similar field of endeavor in biomolecular sensor system (i.e., the system 400; see for example fig. 5, para. [0047]- [0075]); wherein the system further comprising a laser (i.e., laser as e-Beam; for instance, referring to FIG. 2, e-beam lithography is used to define the sensor lateral geometry in a polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) resist and transferred into 20 nm thick SiO.sub.2 using CHF.sub.3 reactive ion etching (Steps 2a-2c); para. [0047]) configured to laser etch (i.e., ion etching (Steps 2a-2c); para. [0047]- [0075]) the Hall Effect sensor assembly (i.e., the Hall element 404 and the magnetic element 401; fig. 5) to form the feature (i.e., to form the opening according to the functional center; for instance, only the bottom of the sensor center opening is functionalized. A label is fitted to the center opening to bind to the sensor surface. This ensures precise positioning of superparamagnetic labels, critical for detection signal reproducibility. Additionally, the field gradients created by the sensor guide the nanoparticles towards the sensor center, thus improving efficiency; para. [0047]- [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the laser fabrication technology in Byers, as taught by Litvinov, as it provides the advantage of optimizing the circuit design.
Regarding claim 5, Byers in view of Litvinov and the teaching of Byers as modified by Litvinov have been discussed above.
Litvinov further teaches the system of claim 2, the system being configured to at least one of form alignment fiducial holes in the Hall Effect sensor assembly or alter dimensions (i.e., The field source is used to address individual sensor cells with sub-1 nm position accuracy and to locally alter the magnetic state of the cells while probing the sensor's resistance; para. [0047]- [0075]) of the Hall Effect sensor assembly (i.e., Hall Effect sensor assembly as the Hall element 404 and the magnetic element 401; fig. 5).
Regarding claim 13, is rejected for the same reasons that have already been stated/discussed above in rejected claim 3. {See rejection of claim 3}
Regarding claim 14, Byers in view of Litvinov and the teaching of Byers as modified by Litvinov have been discussed above.
Litvinov further teaches the system of claim 11, the system being configured to physically alter (i.e., focused ion-beam technology is used for fine alterations of the recording heads either to achieve spatially uniform field gradients for magnetic pull-off or to build ultra-small field generators for individual sensor characterization; para. [0047]- [0075]) the Hall Effect sensor assembly (i.e., Hall element 404 and the magnetic element 401; fig. 5).
Regarding claim 15, is rejected for the same reasons that have already been stated/discussed above in rejected claim 5. {See rejection of claim 5}
Claims 6-10 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byers et al (US Patent No. 4908577) in view of Toyama et al (US Publication No. 20170336276).
Regarding claim 6, Byers teaches the system of claim 1.
Byers does not teach the Hall Effect sensor assembly including a diode electrically connected to the Hall Effect sensor and configured to shunt high voltage events thereby protecting the Hall Effect sensor.
Toyama teaches in a similar field of endeavor in sensor apparatus (i.e., see for example figs. 6B and 9, para. [0038]- [0056]); wherein the Hall Effect sensor assembly (i.e., the Hall Effect sensor assembly as the Hall element 24A and the magnetic element 115; fig. 9) including a diode (i.e., diodes ZD1 and ZD2; fig. 6B) electrically connected (i.e., ZD1 is electrically connected to terminal OUT1 and terminal GND1 and ZD2 is electrically connected to terminal VDD1 and terminal GND1; fig. 6B) to the Hall Effect sensor (i.e., the Hall Effect sensor 24A; fig. 6B) and configured to (i.e., ZD1 and ZD2 are configured to provide bidirectional protection against voltage spikes and noises; fig. 6B) shunt high voltage events thereby protecting (i.e., ZD1 and ZD2 are configured to provide bidirectional protection against voltage spikes and noises; fig. 6B) the Hall Effect sensor (i.e., the Hall Effect sensor 24A; fig. 6B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the diodes in Byers, as taught by Toyama, as it provides the advantage of optimizing the circuit design.
Regarding claim 7, Byers in view of Toyama and the teaching of Byers as modified by Toyama have been discussed above.
Toyama further teaches the system of claim 6, the diode (i.e., diodes ZD1 and ZD2; fig. 6) being mounted to a substrate (i.e., substrate 40; fig. 13) of the Hall Effect sensor assembly (i.e., 50/51; fig. 13).
Regarding claim 8, Byers in view of Toyama and the teaching of Byers as modified by Toyama have been discussed above.
Toyama further teaches the system of claim 7, the substrate being a circuit board (i.e., the substrate circuit board 40; fig. 13).
Regarding claim 9, Byers in view of Toyama and the teaching of Byers as modified by Toyama have been discussed above.
Toyama further teaches the system of claim 8, at least a portion (i.e., portion 50; fig. 15) of the Hall Effect sensor being printed on the substrate (implicit, as seen fig. 15).
Regarding claim 10, Byers in view of Toyama and the teaching of Byers as modified by Toyama have been discussed above.
Toyama further teaches the system of claim 1, the Hall Effect sensor assembly (i.e., the Hall element 24A and the magnetic element 115; fig. 9) including: a first diode (i.e., first diode ZD2; fig. 6B) electrically connected (i.e., ZD2 is electrically connected to terminal VDD1 and terminal GND1; fig. 6B) mounted on the substrate (i.e., the substrate 40; fig. 13) of the Hall Effect sensor assembly and electrically connected to a supply voltage node (i.e., VDD1; fig. 6B) of the Hall Effect sensor assembly; and a second diode (i.e., second diode ZD1; fig. 6B) mounted on the substrate and electrically connected (i.e., ZD1 is electrically connected to terminal OUT1 and terminal GND1; fig. 6B) to an output node (i.e., OUT1; fig. 6B) of the Hall Effect sensor assembly, the first and second diodes (i.e., diodes first diode ZD2 and second diode ZD1; fig. 6B) being configured to shunt high voltage events (i.e., ZD1 and ZD2 are configured to provide bidirectional protection against voltage spikes and noises; fig. 6B) to the ground node (GND1) thereby protecting the Hall Effect sensor (implicit, as seen in fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 16, is rejected for the same reasons that have already been stated/discussed above in rejected claim 6. {See rejection of claim 6}
Regarding claim 17, is rejected for the same reasons that have already been stated/discussed above in rejected claim 7. {See rejection of claim 7}
Regarding claim 18, is rejected for the same reasons that have already been stated/discussed above in rejected claim 8. {See rejection of claim 8}
Regarding claim 19, is rejected for the same reasons that have already been stated/discussed above in rejected claim 9. {See rejection of claim 9}
Claims 4 and 20 are cancelled.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUAAMAR Q AL-TAWEEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0339. The examiner can normally be reached 0730-1700.
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, Thienvu V Tran can be reached at (571) 270- 1276. 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.
/MUAAMAR QAHTAN AL-TAWEEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2838
/THIENVU V TRAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights