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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 15-16, & 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando et al. (US PGPub 20190319772) in view of Jian (US PGPub 20100265010) and Goto et al. (US PGPub 20200366268), all references of record.
As per claim 15:
Ando et al. discloses in Figs. 1A-B & 8A:
An acoustic wave device comprising:
a first die (BAW die [105]) with a multilayer piezoelectric substate ([0106]), the first die including a first portion with a first transmission filter (transmit filter 11) and a second portion with a second transmission filter (S1n-S4n and P1n-P4n); and
a second die that is a surface acoustic wave die (SAW die, [0105]), the second die including a third portion with a first reception filter (receive filter 12) connected to the first transmission filter (through antenna node ANT) and a fourth portion with a second reception filter (RB1n-RB9n) connected to the second transmission filter (through antenna node ANT).
Ando does not disclose that the second die is a temperature compensated surface acoustic wave die.
Ando et al. is silent regarding:
a difference between a velocity of an acoustic wave generated by the first die and a velocity of an acoustic wave generated by the second die being at least 5% of the velocity of the acoustic wave generated by the first die.
Jian discloses in Table 1:
BAW resonators (BAWs or FBARs) may have velocities of 6080 m/s or 11300 m/s, as per the selected piezoelectric material, and that SAW resonators may have a variety of different velocities including 3230 m/s, 3488 m/s, 3992 m/s, 4200 m/s, and 4792 m/s, as per the selected piezoelectric material.
Goto et al. discloses the use of temperature compensation layers with surface acoustic wave resonators ([0130]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for to use the specific SAW and BAW resonators with the materials of Jian as both known in the art SAW and BAW resonators for the generic SAW and BAW resonators of Ando et al. as is well understood in the art, and able to provide the same purpose as taught by Jian ([0057]).
As a consequence of the combination, a difference between a velocity of an acoustic wave generated by the first die and a velocity of an acoustic wave generated by the second die being at least 5% of the velocity of the acoustic wave generated by the first die.
It would be further obvious to provide a temperature compensation layer to the second die to provide the benefit of temperature compensation as taught by Goto et al. ([0130])
As a consequence of the combination, the second die is a temperature compensated surface acoustic wave die that includes a temperature compensation layer.
As per claim 16:
Ando et al. discloses in Figs. 1A-B & 8A:
the first portion includes resonators of the first transmission filter, the second portion includes resonators of the second transmission filter, the third portion includes resonators of the first reception filter, and the fourth portion includes resonators of the second reception filter (as seen in Fig. 1B).
As per claim 19:
Ando et al. does not disclose:
the first die is configured such that an acoustic wave generated by the first die has a velocity greater than 3800 m/s.
Jian discloses in Table 1:
BAW resonators (BAWs or FBARs) may have velocities of 6080 m/s or 11300 m/s, as per the selected piezoelectric material, and that SAW resonators may have a variety of different velocities including 3230 m/s, 3488 m/s, 3992 m/s, 4200 m/s, and 4792 m/s, as per the selected piezoelectric material.
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1, the combination discloses the first die is configured such that an acoustic wave generated by the first die has a velocity greater than 3800 m/s.
As per claim 20:
Ando et al. does not disclose:
a velocity of an acoustic wave generated by the first die is at least 200 m/s greater than a velocity of an acoustic wave generated by the second die.
Jian discloses in Table 1:
BAW resonators (BAWs or FBARs) may have velocities of 6080 m/s or 11300 m/s, as per the selected piezoelectric material, and that SAW resonators may have a variety of different velocities including 3230 m/s, 3488 m/s, 3992 m/s, 4200 m/s, and 4792 m/s, as per the selected piezoelectric material.
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1, the combination discloses a velocity of an acoustic wave generated by the first die is at least 200 m/s greater than a velocity of an acoustic wave generated by the second die.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the resultant combination of Ando et al. (US PGPub 20190319772) in view of Jian (US PGPub 20100265010) and Goto et al. (US PGPub 20200366268) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Caron (US PGPub 20180138893), all references of record.
The resultant combination discloses the acoustic wave device of claim 16, as rejected above.
As per claim 17:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the reception filter of the first multiplexer includes a multimode longitudinally coupled surface acoustic wave resonator.
Caron et al. discloses in Fig. 4:
The use of multimode longitudinally coupled surface acoustic wave resonators (DMS resonator 83) in reception filters ([0103]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reception filter of the first multiplexer to include a multimode longitudinally coupled surface acoustic wave resonator, as an art-recognized alternative/equivalent type of resonator able to be used in reception filters as taught by Caron et al. ([0103]).
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-16, & 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita (US PGPub 20120200371) in view of Ando et al. (US PGPub 20190319772), Jian (US PGPub 20100265010) and Goto et al. (US PGPub 20200366268), the latter three references being references of record.
As per claim 1:
Yamashita discloses in Fig. 2:
An acoustic wave device comprising:
A multilayer piezoelectric substrate (70, as seen in related Fig. 6D) including a first portion with a first transmission filter (52) and a second portion with a second transmission filter (54);
a third portion with a first reception filter (62) and a fourth portion with a second reception filter (64);
a first antenna (Ant (Band2)) common node connected between the first transmission filter and the first reception filter; and
a second antenna (Ant (Band 3)) common node connected between the second transmission filter and the second reception filter.
Yamashita does not disclose:
a first die with a multilayer piezoelectric substrate, the first die including a first portion with a first transmission filter and a second portion with a second transmission filter;
a second die that is a temperature compensated surface acoustic wave die, the second die including a third portion with a first reception filter and a fourth portion with a second reception filter, a difference between a velocity of a first acoustic wave generated by the first die and a velocity of a second acoustic wave generated by the second die being at least 200 m/s;
a first antenna common node connected between the first transmission filter on the first die and the first reception filter on the second die; and
a second antenna common node connected between the second transmission filter on the first die and the second reception filter on the second die.
Ando et al. discloses in Figs. 1A-B & 8A:
An acoustic wave device comprising:
a first multiplexer (duplexer 10) having a first portion (transmit filter 11) and a third portion (receive filter 12); and
a second multiplexer having a second portion (S1n-S4n and P1n-P4n) and a fourth portion (RB1n-RB9n), the first portion and the second portion formed in a first die (BAW resonators on the BAW die, [0105]), the third portion and the fourth portion formed in a second die (SAW resonators on the SAW die, [0105]).
Ando et al. further discloses the resonator dies may include piezoelectric layers ([0106]).
Jian discloses in Table 1:
BAW resonators (BAWs or FBARs) may have velocities of 6080 m/s or 11300 m/s, as per the selected piezoelectric material, and that SAW resonators may have a variety of different velocities including 3230 m/s, 3488 m/s, 3992 m/s, 4200 m/s, and 4792 m/s, as per the selected piezoelectric material.
Goto et al. discloses the use of temperature compensation layers with surface acoustic wave resonators ([0130]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the acoustic wave device of Yamashita to be configured as per Ando et al. wherein portions of the transmission and receive filters comprise BAW resonators and SAW resonators, respectively, and are located on separate dies that may contain a plurality of filters as taught by Ando ([0105-0106]) that further provides the benefit of reducing the second harmonic distortion of the BAW resonators ([0074]).
It would be further obvious to use the specific SAW and BAW resonators with the materials of Jian as both known in the art SAW and BAW resonators for the generic SAW and BAW resonators of Ando et al. as is well understood in the art, and able to provide the same purpose as taught by Jian ([0057]).
As a consequence of the combination, a difference between a velocity of an acoustic wave generated by the first die and a velocity of an acoustic wave generated by the second die being at least 200 m/s.
It would be further obvious to provide a temperature compensation layer to the second die to provide the benefit of temperature compensation as taught by Goto et al. ([0130])
As a consequence of the combination, the second die is a temperature compensated surface acoustic wave die that includes a temperature compensation layer.
As per claim 2:
Yamashita does not disclose:
the first portion includes resonators of the first transmission filter.
Ando et al. discloses in Figs. 1A-B & 8A:
An acoustic wave device comprising:
a first multiplexer (duplexer 10) having a first portion (transmit filter 11) and a third portion (receive filter 12); and
a second multiplexer having a second portion (S1n-S4n and P1n-P4n) and a fourth portion (RB1n-RB9n), the first portion and the second portion formed in a first die (BAW resonators on the BAW die, [0105]), the third portion and the fourth portion formed in a second die (SAW resonators on the SAW die, [0105]).
Ando et al. further discloses the resonator dies may include piezoelectric layers ([0106]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1,
the first portion includes resonators of the first transmission filter
As per claim 3:
Yamashita does not disclose:
the second portion includes resonators of the second transmission filter.
Ando et al. discloses in Figs. 1A-B & 8A:
An acoustic wave device comprising:
a first multiplexer (duplexer 10) having a first portion (transmit filter 11) and a third portion (receive filter 12); and
a second multiplexer having a second portion (S1n-S4n and P1n-P4n) and a fourth portion (RB1n-RB9n), the first portion and the second portion formed in a first die (BAW resonators on the BAW die, [0105]), the third portion and the fourth portion formed in a second die (SAW resonators on the SAW die, [0105]).
Ando et al. further discloses the resonator dies may include piezoelectric layers ([0106]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1,
the second portion includes resonators of the second transmission filter.
As per claim 4:
Yamashita does not disclose:
the third portion includes resonators of the second reception filter, and the fourth portion includes resonators of a second reception filter.
Ando et al. discloses in Figs. 1A-B & 8A:
An acoustic wave device comprising:
a first multiplexer (duplexer 10) having a first portion (transmit filter 11) and a third portion (receive filter 12); and
a second multiplexer having a second portion (S1n-S4n and P1n-P4n) and a fourth portion (RB1n-RB9n), the first portion and the second portion formed in a first die (BAW resonators on the BAW die, [0105]), the third portion and the fourth portion formed in a second die (SAW resonators on the SAW die, [0105]).
Ando et al. further discloses the resonator dies may include piezoelectric layers ([0106]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1, the third portion includes resonators of the second reception filter, and the fourth portion includes resonators of a second reception filter.
As per claim 5:
Yamashita does not disclose:
the first die includes a resonator of the first transmission filter.
Ando et al. discloses in Figs. 1A-B & 8A:
An acoustic wave device comprising:
a first multiplexer (duplexer 10) having a first portion (transmit filter 11) and a third portion (receive filter 12); and
a second multiplexer having a second portion (S1n-S4n and P1n-P4n) and a fourth portion (RB1n-RB9n), the first portion and the second portion formed in a first die (BAW resonators on the BAW die, [0105]), the third portion and the fourth portion formed in a second die (SAW resonators on the SAW die, [0105]).
Ando et al. further discloses the resonator dies may include piezoelectric layers ([0106]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1, the first die includes a resonator of the first transmission filter.
As per claim 6:
Yamashita does not disclose:
the second die includes a resonator of the first reception filter.
Ando et al. discloses in Figs. 1A-B & 8A:
An acoustic wave device comprising:
a first multiplexer (duplexer 10) having a first portion (transmit filter 11) and a third portion (receive filter 12); and
a second multiplexer having a second portion (S1n-S4n and P1n-P4n) and a fourth portion (RB1n-RB9n), the first portion and the second portion formed in a first die (BAW resonators on the BAW die, [0105]), the third portion and the fourth portion formed in a second die (SAW resonators on the SAW die, [0105]).
Ando et al. further discloses the resonator dies may include piezoelectric layers ([0106]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1, the second die includes a resonator of the first reception filter.
As per claims 10 & 19:
Yamashita does not disclose:
the first die is configured such that an acoustic wave generated by the first die has a velocity greater than 3800 m/s.
Jian discloses in Table 1:
BAW resonators (BAWs or FBARs) may have velocities of 6080 m/s or 11300 m/s, as per the selected piezoelectric material, and that SAW resonators may have a variety of different velocities including 3230 m/s, 3488 m/s, 3992 m/s, 4200 m/s, and 4792 m/s, as per the selected piezoelectric material.
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1, the combination discloses the first die is configured such that an acoustic wave generated by the first die has a velocity greater than 3800 m/s.
As per claim 11:
Yamashita does not disclose:
the second die is configured such that an acoustic wave generated by the second die has a velocity less than 3500 m/s.
Jian discloses in Table 1:
BAW resonators (BAWs or FBARs) may have velocities of 6080 m/s or 11300 m/s, as per the selected piezoelectric material, and that SAW resonators may have a variety of different velocities including 3230 m/s, 3488 m/s, 3992 m/s, 4200 m/s, and 4792 m/s, as per the selected piezoelectric material.
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1, the combination discloses the second die is configured such that an acoustic wave generated by the second die has a velocity less than 3500 m/s.
As per claims 12 & 20:
Yamashita does not disclose:
a velocity of an acoustic wave generated by the first die is at least 200 m/s greater than a velocity of an acoustic wave generated by the second die.
Jian discloses in Table 1:
BAW resonators (BAWs or FBARs) may have velocities of 6080 m/s or 11300 m/s, as per the selected piezoelectric material, and that SAW resonators may have a variety of different velocities including 3230 m/s, 3488 m/s, 3992 m/s, 4200 m/s, and 4792 m/s, as per the selected piezoelectric material.
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1, the combination discloses a velocity of an acoustic wave generated by the first die is at least 200 m/s greater than a velocity of an acoustic wave generated by the second die.
As per claim 13:
Yamashita discloses in Fig. 2:
a first antenna coupled to the first antenna common node and a second antenna coupled to the second antenna common node (by disclosing the first antenna terminal and the second antenna terminal to be two separate antenna terminals, two separate antennas are disclosed).
Yamashita does not disclose that the acoustic wave device of claim 1 is included in a front end module.
Ando discloses in Fig. 12:
The filters of a multiplexer may be incorporated into the RF front end of a wireless communication device such as a smart phone ([0112]), and further connected to an antenna (151)
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the acoustic wave device of the combination of claim 1 to be included in an RF front end of a wireless communication device such as a smart phone with the antenna nodes connected to respective antennas to provide the function of processing RF signals as taught by Ando ([0112]) and as well understood in the art.
As per claim 14:
Yamashita does not disclose:
A mobile device including the front end module of claim 13 and a user interface.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a user interface to the mobile devices such as a smart phone of the combination of claim 13 as a well-known and understood method of providing for the operation of wireless mobile devices, such as smart phones, tablets, and laptops.
As per claim 15:
Yamashita discloses in Fig. 2:
An acoustic wave device comprising:
A multilayer piezoelectric substrate (70, as seen in related Fig. 6D) including a first portion with a first transmission filter (52) and a second portion with a second transmission filter (54);
a third portion with a first reception filter (62) and a fourth portion with a second reception filter (64);
a first antenna (Ant (Band2)) common node connected between the first transmission filter and the first reception filter; and
a second antenna (Ant (Band 3)) common node connected between the second transmission filter and the second reception filter.
Yamashita does not disclose:
a first die with a multilayer piezoelectric substrate, the first die including a first portion with a first transmission filter and a second portion with a second transmission filter;
a second die that is a temperature compensated surface acoustic wave die, the second die including a third portion with a first reception filter and a fourth portion with a second reception filter, a difference between a velocity of a first acoustic wave generated by the first die and a velocity of a second acoustic wave generated by the second die being at least 5% of the velocity of the first acoustic wave generated by the first die.
Ando et al. discloses in Figs. 1A-B & 8A:
An acoustic wave device comprising:
a first multiplexer (duplexer 10) having a first portion (transmit filter 11) and a third portion (receive filter 12); and
a second multiplexer having a second portion (S1n-S4n and P1n-P4n) and a fourth portion (RB1n-RB9n), the first portion and the second portion formed in a first die (BAW resonators on the BAW die, [0105]), the third portion and the fourth portion formed in a second die (SAW resonators on the SAW die, [0105]).
Ando et al. further discloses the resonator dies may include piezoelectric layers ([0106]).
Jian discloses in Table 1:
BAW resonators (BAWs or FBARs) may have velocities of 6080 m/s or 11300 m/s, as per the selected piezoelectric material, and that SAW resonators may have a variety of different velocities including 3230 m/s, 3488 m/s, 3992 m/s, 4200 m/s, and 4792 m/s, as per the selected piezoelectric material.
Goto et al. discloses the use of temperature compensation layers with surface acoustic wave resonators ([0130]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the acoustic wave device of Yamashita to be configured as per Ando et al. wherein portions of the transmission and receive filters comprise BAW resonators and SAW resonators, respectively, and are located on separate dies that may contain a plurality of filters as taught by Ando ([0105-0106]) that further provides the benefit of reducing the second harmonic distortion of the BAW resonators ([0074]).
It would be further obvious to use the specific SAW and BAW resonators with the materials of Jian as both known in the art SAW and BAW resonators for the generic SAW and BAW resonators of Ando et al. as is well understood in the art, and able to provide the same purpose as taught by Jian ([0057]).
As a consequence of the combination, a difference between a velocity of an acoustic wave generated by the first die and a velocity of an acoustic wave generated by the second die being at least 5% of the velocity of the acoustic wave generated by the first die.
It would be further obvious to provide a temperature compensation layer to the second die to provide the benefit of temperature compensation as taught by Goto et al. ([0130])
As a consequence of the combination, the second die is a temperature compensated surface acoustic wave die that includes a temperature compensation layer.
As per claim 16:
Yamashita does not disclose:
the first portion includes resonators of the first transmission filter, the second portion includes resonators of the second transmission filter, the third portion includes resonators of the first reception filter, and the fourth portion includes resonators of the second reception filter.
Ando et al. discloses in Figs. 1A-B & 8A:
An acoustic wave device comprising:
a first multiplexer (duplexer 10) having a first portion (transmit filter 11) and a third portion (receive filter 12); and
a second multiplexer having a second portion (S1n-S4n and P1n-P4n) and a fourth portion (RB1n-RB9n), the first portion and the second portion formed in a first die (BAW resonators on the BAW die, [0105]), the third portion and the fourth portion formed in a second die (SAW resonators on the SAW die, [0105]).
As a consequence of claim 15, the combination discloses the first portion includes resonators of the first transmission filter, the second portion includes resonators of the second transmission filter, the third portion includes resonators of the first reception filter, and the fourth portion includes resonators of the second reception filter.
Claim(s) 7, & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the resultant combination of Yamashita (US PGPub 20120200371) in view of Ando et al. (US PGPub 20190319772), Jian (US PGPub 20100265010) and Goto et al. (US PGPub 20200366268) as applied to claims 3 & 16 above, and further in view of Caron (US PGPub 20180138893), the latter four references being references of record.
The resultant combination discloses the acoustic wave device of claims 3 & 16, as rejected above.
As per claims 7 & 17:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the reception filter of the first multiplexer includes a multimode longitudinally coupled surface acoustic wave resonator.
Caron et al. discloses in Fig. 4:
The use of multimode longitudinally coupled surface acoustic wave resonators (DMS resonator 83) in reception filters ([0103]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reception filter of the first multiplexer to include a multimode longitudinally coupled surface acoustic wave resonator, as an art-recognized alternative/equivalent type of resonator able to be used in reception filters as taught by Caron et al. ([0103]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 & 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the limitations of claims 8 & 18 were not disclosed or rendered obvious over the prior art of record or a further search of the art. Specifically, the prior art does not disclose a first thickness of a layer of a multilayer first interdigital transducer on the first die is greater than 0.06L where L is a wavelength of the first acoustic wave, and a second thickness of layer of a multilayer interdigital transducer on the second die is less than 0.06L, where L is a wavelength of the second acoustic wave.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/09/2025 with regard to claims 15-17 & 19-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8 of the applicant’s remarks, the applicant argues that claim 15 is amended along similar lines as in claim 1, and thus overcomes the references for the same reasons. The examiner respectfully disagrees, in that claim 15 does overcome the references of record with the addition of Goto, a reference of record, as claim 15 does not incorporate language regarding a second antenna common node as per claim 1. As such, claim 15 has been amended to incorporate Goto, and is further rejected under Ando, Jian, and Goto in a combination similarly used for claim 18 prior to amendment.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 10/09/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under Ando in view of Jian have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yamashita in view of Ando, Jian, and Goto, and further Ando in view of Jian with respect to claims 15-17 & 19-20 have been replaced with Ando in view of Jian and Goto.
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 SAMUEL S OUTTEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7123. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Andrea Lindgren Baltzell can be reached at (571) 272-1988. 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.
/Samuel S Outten/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843