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 .
Response to Arguments
This Office Action is in response to the amended application filed on November 10,2025. The Remarks of November 10, 2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows.
The Remarks regarding the objections to the Drawings are considered and the replacement sheet to Fig. 3 is accepted. There are no further objections to the Drawings.
Although the Remarks do not address the objections to the Specification, the amendments to the Specification are considered and accepted. There are no further objections to the Specification.
The Remarks regarding the objections to the Claims are considered and the respective amendments to the claims 9 and 10 are accepted. There are no further objections to the Claims.
The Remarks regarding the 112 rejections of claims 4 and 5 are considered.
Regarding claim 4, the applicant (page 12 of 16) argues that “that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the meaning of lengths being "substantially equal" at least in light of this Specification.” In support of this statement, the applicant (page 13 of 16) further argues that: “the Specification discloses that the feedlines have substantially equal lengths to provide a desired symmetry "subject to the practical limits of the processes employed to design and manufacture the antenna array." In light of at least this, Applicant submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand claim 4 to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Applicant regards as the invention.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees with these statements. Firstly, the term “desired symmetry” is not being defined in any unambiguous terms in the Specification and, thus, is indefinite. Reciting “practical limits of the processes employed” without specifically pointing out what these practical limits are does not remedy the indefiniteness of the term “desired symmetry” and, subsequently, the term “substantially equal” as recited in the claim. Absent recitation of a standard deviation or a variance value associated with the lengths in question a person skilled in the art would not be able to ascertain when these lengths are substantially equal. Therefore, the 112 rejection of claim 4 stands. In order to overcome the 112 rejection of claim 4, the examiner recommends that “substantially equal” is amended to “equal”.
Regarding claim 5, the applicant (page 13 of 16) argues that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the meaning of impedances being "substantially equal" at least in light of this Specification.” In support of this statement, the applicant argues that: “the Specification notes that each feed point has an impedance suitable for impedance matching with other components. As such, for example, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand "substantially equal" impedances in this context to mean impedances within a tolerance range (e.g., error range) that are still suitable for impedance matching other components of the antenna.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees with these statements. Claiming that an impedance is suitable for impedance matching with other components, does not provide more clarity since the term “suitable” is indefinite on its own. Reciting a tolerance range (e.g., error range) without attaching any numerical values to this range does not provide a person skilled in the art with means to gauge when impedances are substantially equal. Therefore, the 112 rejection of claim 5 stands. In order to overcome the 112 rejection of claim 5, the examiner recommends that “substantially equal” is amended to “equal”.
The Remarks regarding the 103 rejections of the claims are considered. The examiner finds the applicant arguments persuasive. Further, the examiner agrees that Komura et al. (US 20200295464 A1, hereinafter Komura) does not teach a microstrip feedline conductively connected, at a second end, to a radiating element at each of a first feed point and a second feed point of the radiating element. Therefore, the 103 rejection of the original claim 3 is deemed improper.
The applicant’s amendments to claim 1 necessitate new grounds of rejection.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The following features are not shown in the Drawings:
Claim 1 (lines 13-16): “a first microstrip feedline … connected, at a second end, to a first radiating element of the pair at each of a first feed point and a second feed point of the first radiating element”. Fig. 3 in the Drawings clearly indicates that the second end of the first microstrip line is connected to only one of the feed points of the first radiating element (see annotated Fig. 3 below). There is no figure in the Drawings that shows the above limitation;
Claim 3 (lines 7-10): “a second microstrip feedline … conductively connected, at a second end, to a second radiating element of the pair at each of a third feed point and a fourth feed point of the second radiating element”. Fig. 3 in the Drawings clearly indicates that the second end of the second microstrip line is connected to only one of the feed points of the second radiating element (see annotated Fig. 3 below). There is no figure in the Drawings that shows the above limitation.
PNG
media_image1.png
545
1126
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the above feature(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should be amended as follows:
A dual-mode antenna array configured to receive radio frequency (RF) signaling for angle-of-arrival (AoA) analysis, the dual-mode antenna array comprising:
a substrate;
a ground plane disposed at a first side of the substrate; [[and]]
a pair of radiating elements disposed at a second side of the substrate opposite the first side and separated by a lateral distance, wherein each radiating element of the pair [[comprising:]] comprises conductive material arranged in a modified rectangular shape having a first slot at a first side, a second slot at a second side opposite the first side, a third slot at a third side, and a fourth slot at a fourth side opposite the third side;
a feed probe disposed at the second side of the substrate and adjacent to the pair of radiating elements; and
a first microstrip feedline conductively connected, at a first end, to the feed probe and conductively connected, at a second end, to a first radiating element of the pair at each of a first feed point and a second feed point of the first radiating element.
Reason for the above amendment: The feed probe and the first microstrip feedline are not features of the pair of radiating elements, but features of the antenna array.
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 1-10 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 recites: “A dual-mode antenna array configured to receive radio frequency (RF) signaling for angle-of-arrival (AoA) analysis, the dual-mode antenna array comprising: … a first microstrip feedline conductively connected, at a first end, to the feed probe and conductively connected, at a second end, to a first radiating element of the pair at each of a first feed point and a second feed point of the first radiating element.” The claimed antenna array is configured for angle-of-arrival (AoA) analysis. However, only one of its two radiating elements is connected to the feed probe via a microstrip feedline. It is well-known in the art that an antenna array which receives signals from a single radiating element cannot be used for AoA analysis unless that radiating element has high directivity and its peak-gain angle can be scanned across an appropriate range of angles. Therefore, absent recitation of a second feedline conductively connecting the second radiating element of the array to the feed probe, or, alternatively, means for scanning the peak-gain angle of the first radiating element, wherein the first radiating element has high directivity, the scope of the invention as claimed here is indefinite.
Claims 2-10 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 1 and are subsequently rejected, as well.
Claim 4 (lines 2-3 and 5-6) recites: “a length of the first microstrip feedline between the feed probe and the first feed point is substantially equal to a length of the second microstrip feedline” and “a length of the first microstrip feedline between the feed probe and the second feed point is substantially equal to a length of the second feedline”. The meaning of “substantially equal” as related to lengths or elements’ dimensions in general is not clear and, furthermore, is not defined in the Specification of the current disclosure (see Response to Arguments above), which makes the scope of the invention as claimed here indefinite.
Claim 5 recites “the first, second, third, and fourth feed points have substantially equal impedances”. The meaning of “substantially equal” as related to impedance(s) is not clear and, furthermore, is not defined in the Specification of the current disclosure (see Response to Arguments above), which makes the scope of the invention as claimed here indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang et al. (US 20200235491 A1, hereinafter Fang) in view of McCarrick et al. (US 20090051598 A1, hereinafter McCarrick) and Cooper et al. (US 10957978 B2, hereinafter Cooper).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Fang discloses (Figs. 1A and 1B) an antenna array (100) comprising:
a substrate (110);
a ground plane (120) disposed at a first side of the substrate; [[and]]
a pair of radiating elements (140 and 150) disposed at a second side of the substrate opposite the first side and separated by a lateral distance (D1), wherein each radiating element of the pair [[comprising:]] comprises conductive material arranged in a rectangular shape;
a feed probe (135) disposed at the second side of the substrate and adjacent to the pair of radiating elements; and
a first microstrip feedline conductively connected, at a first end, to the feed probe and conductively connected, at a second end, to a first radiating element of the pair (regarding the first microstrip feedline, its first and second ends, see annotated Fig. 1A in Fang below).
PNG
media_image2.png
610
844
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Examiner notes that the preamble of the claim is not considered here since it does not affect the structural features of the antenna array.
Fang does not disclose each radiating element of the pair [[comprising:]] comprises conductive material arranged in a modified rectangular shape having a first slot at a first side, a second slot at a second side opposite the first side, a third slot at a third side, and a fourth slot at a fourth side opposite the third side.
PNG
media_image3.png
646
508
media_image3.png
Greyscale
McCarrick teaches (Fig. 4) a radiating element (100) comprising conductive material (400) arranged in a modified rectangular shape having a first slot at a first side, a second slot at a second side opposite the first side, a third slot at a third side, and a fourth slot at a fourth side opposite the third side (regarding first, second, third and fourth slots, and first, second, third and fourth sides, see annotated Fig. 4 in McCarrick below).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fang so that each radiating element of the pair [[comprising:]] comprises conductive material arranged in a modified rectangular shape having a first slot at a first side, a second slot at a second side opposite the first side, a third slot at a third side, and a fourth slot at a fourth side opposite the third side as taught by McCarrick. This modification would provide reduced dimensions of each radiating element necessary for the elements to operate in a given frequency band, and would achieve increased antenna impedance bandwidth (see McCarrick, [0027]).
The so modified Fang does not teach the limitation wherein a first microstrip feedline is conductively connected, at a second end, to a first radiating element of the pair at each of a first feed point and a second feed point of the first radiating element.
PNG
media_image4.png
644
610
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Cooper (Fig. 10) teaches a feedline (101) connected, at a second end, to a radiating element (86) at each of a first feed point (46L) and a second feed point (46H) of the radiating element (regarding the second end of the feedline, see annotated Fig. 10 in Cooper below).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fang so that a first microstrip feedline is conductively connected, at a second end, to a first radiating element of the pair at each of a first feed point and a second feed point of the first radiating element as taught by Cooper. This modification would provide a radiating element that radiates in a low frequency band and in a high frequency band (see Cooper, col. 18, lines 66-67, and col. 19, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, the modified Fang as applied to claim 1 teaches the dual-mode antenna array of claim 1.
The modified Fang does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein:
the first slot and second slot each has a depth such that a length of a perimeter of the modified rectangular shape at each of the first side and the second side is at least equal to a half-wavelength of a center frequency of a first band in the received RF signaling; and/or
the third slot and fourth slot each has a depth such that a length of the perimeter of the modified rectangular shape at each of the third side and the fourth side is at least equal to a half-wavelength of a center frequency of a second band in the received RF signaling, the second band orthogonally polarized relative to the first band.
However, McCarrick ([0035]) teaches: “A rectangular patch 400 according to the principles of the invention is not limited to a particular size. In a preferred embodiment, the base of the patch Bp may be dimensioned approximately one-eighth (1/8) to one wavelength, l, at a frequency of interest. The width Wp of the patch 400, may be the same as the base Bp, or another dimension approximately one-eighth (1/8) to one wavelength, l, at a frequency of interest. A rectangular patch 400 according to the invention can be smaller than its conventional Euclidean counterpart (e.g., circular without perturbations) while providing at least as much or nearly as much gain and frequencies of resonance, a low Q and resultant good bandwidth.”
Furthermore, the current specification discloses ([0047], lines 19-23): “In other instances, a minimum efficiency for each mode may be specified, and the overall dimensions and slot dimensions selected based on these parameters through, for example, iterative simulation and evaluation processes.”
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fang so that the first slot and second slot each has a depth such that a length of a perimeter of the modified rectangular shape at each of the first side and the second side is at least equal to a half-wavelength of a center frequency of a first band in the received RF signaling; and/or the third slot and fourth slot each has a depth such that a length of the perimeter of the modified rectangular shape at each of the third side and the fourth side is at least equal to a half-wavelength of a center frequency of a second band in the received RF signaling, the second band orthogonally polarized relative to the first band. This modification would provide a small antenna with good gain and good bandwidth (see McCarrick [0035], lines 8-12). Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, the modified Fang as applied to claim 1 teaches the dual-mode antenna array of claim 1.
Further, Fang (Fig. 1A) discloses a second microstrip feedline conductively connected, at a first end, to the feed probe and conductively connected, at a second end, to a second radiating element of the pair at a feed point of second radiating element, wherein the feed point of the second radiating element has having a location on the second radiating element that correspond to the location of the feed point, respectively, of the first radiating element (regarding the first radiating element and its feed point, and the second radiating element and its feed point, see annotated Fig. 1A in Fang above).
The modified Fang does not teach the limitation wherein a second microstrip feedline is conductively connected, at a second end, to a second radiating element of the pair at each of a third feed point and a fourth feed point of the second radiating element.
Cooper (Fig. 10) teaches a feedline (101) connected, at a second end, to a radiating element (86) at each of a first feed point (46L) and a second feed point (46H) of the radiating element (regarding the second end of the feedline, see annotated Fig. 10 in Cooper above).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fang so that a second microstrip feedline is conductively connected, at a second end, to a second radiating element of the pair at each of a third feed point and a fourth feed point of the second radiating element as taught by Cooper. This modification would provide a radiating element that radiates in a low frequency band and in a high frequency band (see Cooper, col. 18, lines 66-67, and col. 19, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, the modified Fang as applied to claim 3 teaches the dual-mode antenna array of claim 3.
The modified Fang does not teach explicitly the limitation wherein a length of the first microstrip feedline between the feed probe and the first feed point is substantially equal to a length of the second microstrip feedline between the feed probe and the third feed point; and/or a length of the first microstrip feedline between the feed probe and the second feed point is substantially equal to a length of the second feedline between the feed probe and the fourth feed point.
However, Fang (Fig. 1A) discloses a length of the first microstrip feedline between the feed probe (135) and the feed point of the first radiating element is substantially equal to a length of the second microstrip feedline between the feed probe (135) and the feed point of the second radiating element (regarding the first microstrip feedline, the first radiating element and its feed point, and the second microstrip feedline, the second radiating element and its feed point, see annotated Fig. 1A in Fang above).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fang so that a length of the first microstrip feedline between the feed probe and the first feed point is substantially equal to a length of the second microstrip feedline between the feed probe and the third feed point; and/or a length of the first microstrip feedline between the feed probe and the second feed point is substantially equal to a length of the second feedline between the feed probe and the fourth feed point. This modification would provide an antenna array having equal phases accumulated between the feed probe and the respective corresponding feed points of the first and second radiating elements, which eliminates undesired phase differences when performing AOA analysis.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, the modified Fang as applied to claim 3 teaches the dual-mode antenna array of claim 3.
The modified Fang does not teach explicitly the limitation wherein the first, second, third, and fourth feed points have substantially equal impedances.
However, Fang teaches (Fig. 1C; [0038], lines 11-16) each of the first antenna element (140) and the second antenna element (150) includes identical radiation element (152), connection element (154), and impedance adjustment element (156). As is well-known in the art, this, in turn, provides equal impedances at the feed points of the respective antenna elements.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify Fang so that the first, second, third, and fourth feed points have substantially equal impedances. This modification would insure efficient operation of the antenna array.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, the modified Fang as applied to claim 3 teaches the dual-mode antenna array of claim 3.
Further, Fang (Fig. 1A) discloses the feed probe (135) is disposed adjacent to collinear sides of the first radiating element and the second radiating element (see annotated Fig. 1A in Fang above).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, the modified Fang as applied to claim 2 teaches the dual-mode antenna array of claim 2.
The modified Fang does not teach explicitly the limitation wherein the lateral distance is not greater than half of the wavelength corresponding to the higher of the center frequency of the first band and the center frequency of the second band.
However, Fang discloses (Fig. 1A; [0039, 0040]) the lateral distance (D1) may be from 2.2 mm to 4.2 mm (see [0040], lines 19-22), which is not greater than half of the wavelength of the operation frequency of 24 GHz of the antenna array (see [0039], lines 5-6). For reference, the Examiner notes that for a frequency of operation of 24 GHz the corresponding wavelength of radiation in free space is equal to approximately 12.5 mm.
Furthermore, the current specification discloses ([0047], lines 19-23): “In other instances, a minimum efficiency for each mode may be specified, and the overall dimensions and slot dimensions selected based on these parameters though, for example, iterative simulation and evaluation processes.” Similarly, Fang ([0040], lines 22-23) discloses: “The above ranges of element sizes are calculated and obtained according to many experiment results”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fang so that the lateral distance is not greater than half of the wavelength corresponding to the higher of the center frequency of the first band and the center frequency of the second band. This modification would help optimize the beam width and impedance matching of the antenna array (see Fang, [0040], lines 22-25). Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, the modified Fang as applied to claim 2 teaches the dual-mode antenna array of claim 2.
The modified Fang does not teach explicitly the limitation wherein a length of each of the first side and the second side is less than the wavelength corresponding to the center frequency of the first band in a material of the substrate; and/or a length of each of the third side and the fourth side is less than the wavelength corresponding to the center frequency of the second band in a material of the substrate.
However, McCarrick teaches (Fig. 4; [0003], lines 13-16, [0035], lines 2-8) a length (Bp) of each of the first side and the second side is approximately one-eighth (⅛) to one wavelength, λ, at a frequency of interest in a material of the substrate (see [0003], lines 13-16); and/or a length (Wp) of each of the third side and the fourth side is approximately one-eighth (⅛) to one wavelength, λ, at a frequency of interest in a material of the substrate (see [0003], lines 13-16).
Furthermore, the current specification discloses ([0047], lines 19-23): “In other instances, a minimum efficiency for each mode may be specified, and the overall dimensions and slot dimensions selected based on these parameters though, for example, iterative simulation and evaluation processes.”
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fang so that the lateral distance is not greater than half of the wavelength corresponding to the higher of the center frequency of the first band and the center frequency of the second band. This modification would provide antenna elements with good gain and good bandwidth (see McCarrick, [0035], lines 10-12). Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Fang as applied to claim 3 in view of Bales et al. (US 9391375 B1, hereinafter Bales).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, the modified Fang teaches the dual-mode antenna array of claim 3.
The modified Fang does not teach explicitly the limitation wherein the feed probe is disposed between the first radiating element and the second radiating element.
Bales teaches (Fig. 4) a feed probe (380) disposed between a first radiating element (306) and a second radiating element (308).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fang, so that the feed probe is disposed between the first radiating element and the second radiating element as taught by Bales in order to meet the electronic device design and/or performance requirements as dictated by the specific stacking of the elements in the antenna array and the real estate provided – for example, providing a more compact antenna array.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Fang as applied to claim 3 in view of view of Komura et al. (US 20200295464 A1, hereinafter Komura).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, the modified Fang teaches the dual-mode antenna array of claim 3.
The modified Fang does not teach explicitly the limitation wherein the first microstrip feedline is conductively coupled to the first feed point and second feed point using conductive vias; and/or the second microstrip feedline is conductively coupled to the third feed point and fourth feed point using conductive vias.
Komura teaches (Fig. 4B) a feedline (note that the feedline is comprised of elements 151, 150A, 152, 162, and 150B or elements 151, 150A, 152, 161, and 150B) which is conductively coupled to feed points (111 and 112) using conductive vias (141 and 142).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fang, so that the first microstrip feedline is conductively coupled to the first feed point and second feed point using conductive vias; and/or the second microstrip feedline is conductively coupled to the third feed point and fourth feed point using conductive vias as taught by Komura in order to meet the electronic device design and/or performance requirements as dictated by the specific stacking of the elements in the antenna array and the real estate provided – for example, providing a more compact antenna array.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV whose telephone number is (571)272-3467. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00-17:00.
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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at 571-270-7893. 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.
/MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845