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
Applicant's arguments filed 06/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Jacobs in view of Malinin does not teach “a coupling winding that extends around each of the plurality of magnetic cores to provide magnetic integration among the plurality of magnetic cores through an electrical coupling” as recited in claim 1 and similar limitations in claim 15. Applicant asserts that the magnetic cores 701 and 702 of Jacobs are parts of the same EI magnetic core structure of transformer T1. This EI magnetic core structure is not “a plurality of magnetic cores” in one integrated transformer of a current doubler rectifier as required by claim 1. Accordingly, the ripple cancellation windings Nrc1 and Nrc2 of Jacobs are not coupling windings to “provide magnetic integration among the plurality of magnetic cores through an electrical coupling” as recited in claim 1. The ripple-cancellation windings Nrc1 and Nrc2 are wound around the same magnetic core structure and not different magnetic cores of the transformer T1. Jacobs is completely silent as to the ripple-current windings Nrc1 and Nrc2 being wound around each of the plurality of magnetic cores to provide magnetic integration or coupling among such plurality of magnetic cores. Applicant states that the “coupling winding” C1 of claim 1 is shown in FIG. 7 of the present invention, and the two magnetic cores in the integrated transformer 310 as shown in Fig. 7 of the present invention are clearly different magnetic cores.
Applicant also asserts that Malinin does not cure the deficiencies of Jacobs because Malinin is directed to synchronous rectifier and not a current double rectifier. Even if it’s proper to combine Jacobs and Malinin, winding N4 and N5 of Malinin are “voltage compensation winding” not “coupling winding” as recited in claim 1.
After careful consideration without passion or prejudice, the argument is not found persuasive, respectfully. The examiner interprets “integrated transformer” as a transformer combined with other circuits. As seen in FIGURES 7 and 11, Jacob teaches the transformer T1 having an E core 701 and an I core 702 having primary windings Np1 and Np2, secondary windings Ns1 and Ns2 and windings Nrc1 and Nrc2. Since windings Nrc1 and Nrc2 are additional circuits to transformer T1, the transformer T1 of Jacobs is proper to interpret as “integrated transformer” as claimed. The claim merely requires “an integrated transformer comprise a plurality of magnetic cores.” The integrated transformer T1 has two magnetic cores, E core 701 and I core 702, (para. [0060]). Therefore, Jacobs teaches the “plurality of magnetic cores” as claimed. Jacobs also expressly teach “a current-doubler rectification circuit of the invention” (para. [0059]). As such, Jacob meets “a current doubler rectifier” requirement as recited. In addition, the “ripple-cancellation windings Nrc1, [and] Nrc2” (para. [0064]) as schematically shown in FIGURE 11 of Jacobs correspond to the “coupling winding” C1 or C2 of FIG. 7 of the present invention. Therefore, “ripple-cancellation windings” Nrc1 and or Nrc2 of Jacobs is proper to interpret as the “coupling winding” as currently claimed regardless of the terminology used in Jacobs. Fig. 7 of the present invention is a schematic drawing, and it’s not clear if the schematic core (two parallel lines) represents a single core or four different cores. So Fig. 7 of the present invention cannot be used to support different magnetic cores. No matter how many magnetic cores are in Fig. 7 of the present invention, Jacobs undisputably teaches two magnetic cores 701 and 702, which meets “a plurality of magnetic cores” as claimed.
Claim 1 requires three windings, primary winding, secondary winding and coupling winding on each of the plurality of magnetic cores. Jacobs teaches an EI cores in which all the primary windings, the secondary windings and coupling windings are wound on the E core, and no winding is wound on the I core. Malinin teaches a power converter having two E cores 502 and 506 (instead of EI cores as in Jacobs) (para. [0041]). On magnetic core 502, primary winding N1-1, secondary N3 and third winding N5 are wound, and on magnetic core 504, primary winding N1-2, secondary winding N2 and third winding N4 are wound (paras. [0039] and [0041]). A person with ordinary skill in the art would replace the EI cores of Jacobs with the EE magnetic cores and windings structure of Malinin with the motivation as set forth in the Office action dated 03/06/2025. Accordingly, Jacobs in view of Malinin sufficiently teaches “a coupling winding that extends around each of the plurality of magnetic cores to provide magnetic integration among the plurality of magnetic cores through an electrical coupling” as recited in claim 1 and similar limitations on claim 15, and it’s proper to combine the cited references with the motivation as set forth.
With respect to claim 18, applicant argues that the rungs of the magnetic core in FIG. 8 of Xu is not “twisted” as required by the claim. Applicant asserts that Xu is directed to a multiphase coupled inductor configuration, not a transformer for a current doubler rectifier.
After careful consideration without passion or prejudice, the argument is respectfully found not persuasive. Applicant is reminded that Fig. 10, not Fig. 8 as stated by applicant, of Xu is applied in the Office action dated 03/06/2026. In Fig. 10 of Xu, the rungs 54a-54d (the claimed “central legs”) are turned between 20 to 70 degrees (para. [0045]). This turned rungs is reasonable to interpreted as “twisted” as claimed. Inductor and transformer work under the same induction principle. Accordingly, it’s reasonable to apply the twisted core teaching of Xu to the new art applied to reject claim 18.
Currently doubler rectifier as claimed is well known in the art. Nonetheless, it appears Malinin in view of Xu appears to be silent on “current doubler rectifier” as claimed. Accordingly, the argument is found persuasive, and this Office action is made Non-final.
The drawings objection with respect to claims 8 and 14 are withdrawn as a result of the explanation made in the reply filed on 06/04/2026.
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. Therefore, “the auxiliary legs of the magnetic core comprise central auxiliary legs and side auxiliary legs” as recited in amended claim 16 and the “a coupling winding of the plurality of the coupling windings extends around at least one auxiliary leg among the auxiliary legs of a magnetic core of the plurality of the magnetic cores” as recited in amended claim 17 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 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.
Claims 1-6, 9 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2008/0101099 A1) in view of Malinin et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2011/0157945 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Jacobs teaches a power converter (FIGURE 11), comprising:
a switched bridged input stage (switching circle, para. [0069], not expressly shown); and
a current doubler rectifier output stage 1100 comprising an integrated transformer T1, wherein:
the integrated transformer comprises a plurality of magnetic cores 701 and 702;
a primary winding Np and a secondary winding Ns of the integrated transformer; and
the integrated transformer further comprises a coupling winding Nrc1 and or Nrc2 to provide magnetic integration among the plurality of magnetic cores through an electrical coupling (paras. [0060] and [0064]-[0066]).
PNG
media_image1.png
478
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jacobs does not expressly teach
the integrated transformer comprises a plurality of magnetic cores;
a primary winding and a secondary winding of the integrated transformer extend around each of the plurality of magnetic cores; and
the integrated transformer further comprises a coupling winding that extends around each of the plurality of magnetic cores.
Malinin et al., hereinafter referred to as “Malinin,” teaches a power converter (FIGs. 2-5)
the integrated transformer T1 comprises a plurality of magnetic cores;
a primary winding N1-1 and N1-2 and a secondary winding N2 and N3of the integrated transformer extend around each of the plurality of magnetic cores; and
the integrated transformer further comprises a coupling winding N4 and or N5 that extends around each of the plurality of magnetic cores (paras. [0037]-[0041]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the windings on the magnetic cores as taught by Malinin to the power converter of Jacobs to provide the required magnetic coupling between different windings to meet design requirements.
With respect to claim 2, Jacobs in view of Malinin teaches the power converter according to claim 1, wherein:
each of the plurality of magnetic cores comprises side legs (outer legs) and a center leg (middle legs);
the primary winding and the secondary winding of the current doubler rectifier output stage extend around the center leg of each of the plurality of magnetic cores (Malinin, paras. [0037] and [0038]).
With respect to claim 3, Jacobs in view of Malinin teaches the power converter according to claim 1, wherein:
each of the plurality of magnetic cores comprises side legs (outer legs) and a center leg (middle leg);
the coupling winding extends around the center leg of each of the plurality of magnetic cores (Malinin, para. [0038]).
With respect to claim 4, Jacobs in view of Malinin teaches the power converter according to claim 1, wherein:
each of the plurality of magnetic cores comprises side legs (outer legs) and a center leg (middle leg);
the primary winding and the secondary winding of the current doubler rectifier output stage extend around the side legs of each of the plurality of magnetic cores (Jacobs, para. [0061]).
With respect to claim 5, Jacobs in view of Malinin teaches the power converter according to claim 4, wherein the coupling winding extends around the center leg of each of the plurality of magnetic cores (Jacobs, para. [0061], Malinin, para. [0038]).
With respect to claim 6, Jacobs in view of Malinin teaches the power converter according to claim 1, further comprising a coupling inductor Lrc electrically coupled with the coupling winding to set a coupling coefficient among the plurality of magnetic cores (Jacobo, para. [0064]).
With respect to claim 9, Jacobs in view of Malinin teaches the power converter according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of magnetic cores comprises side legs (outer legs) and a center leg (center leg) (Jacobs, para. [0061]).
With respect to claim 12, Jacobs in view of Malinin teaches the power converter according to claim 1, wherein the integrated transformer comprises a planar transformer (the windings of Malinin are planar) (Malinin, paras. [0037] and [0038]).
With respect to claim 13, Jacobs in view of Malinin teaches the power converter according to claim 1, wherein magnetization inductances in the integrated transformer operate as inductors in the current doubler rectifier output stage (para. [0064]).
With respect to claim 14, Jacobs in view of Malinin teaches the power converter according to claim 1, wherein the current doubler rectifier output stage does not include inductors separated from the integrated transformer (para. [0064]).
With respect to claim 15, Jacobs teaches a current doubler rectifier (FIGURE 11), comprising:
an integrated transformer T1; and
a coupling inductor Lrc; wherein:
the integrated transformer comprises a plurality of magnetic core 701 and 702 (see FIG. 8 for illustration);
a primary winding Np and a secondary winding Ns of the integrated transformer extend around legs (outer legs) of the magnetic cores;
the integrated transformer further comprises a plurality of coupling windings Nrc1 and Nrc2 that extend around auxiliary legs of each of the plurality of the magnetic cores; and
the coupling inductor is electrically coupled with the plurality of coupling windings to set a coupling coefficient among the legs of plurality of the magnetic core (paras. [0064]-[0066]).
Jacobs does not expressly teach
the integrated transformer further comprises a plurality of coupling windings that extend around auxiliary legs of the magnetic core.
Malinin teaches a current doubler rectifier (FIGs. 2-5), wherein
the integrated transformer T1 further comprises a plurality of coupling winding N4 and or N5 that extend around auxiliary legs (middle legs of cores 220) of the magnetic core 220 (paras. [0038]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the windings on the magnetic cores as taught by Malinin to the power converter of Jacobs to provide the required magnetic coupling between different windings to meet design requirements.
With respect to claim 16, Jacobs in view of Malinin teaches the current doubler rectifier according to claim 15, wherein:
the integrated transformer comprises a planar transformer (the windings of Malinin are planar); and
the auxiliary legs of each of the plurality of magnetic cores comprise central auxiliary legs and side auxiliary legs.
With respect to claim 17, Jacobs in view of Malinin teaches the current doubler rectifier according to claim 16, wherein a coupling winding of the plurality of the coupling windings extends around at least one auxiliary leg among the auxiliary legs of a magnetic core of the plurality of the magnetic cores (Malinin, para. [0038]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs in view of Malinin, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Andres et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2014/0266530 A1).
With respect to claim 7, Jacobs in view of Malinin teaches the power converter according to claim 1, wherein:
the primary winding comprises multiple turns extending around each of the plurality of magnetic cores (Jacobs, para. [0061]), Malinin, para. [0038]). Jacobs in view of Malinin does not expressly teach
the secondary winding comprises a plurality of winding fins;
each of the plurality of winding fins extending a single turn around each of the plurality of magnetic cores; and
the plurality of winding fins of the secondary winding are interleaved among the multiple turns of the primary winding around each of the plurality of magnetic cores.
Andres et al., hereinafter referred to as “Andres,” teaches a power converter (FIG.2), wherein
the secondary winding 206 and or 208 comprises a plurality of winding fins (turns);
each of the plurality of winding fins extending a single turn around each of the plurality of magnetic cores (core legs); and
the plurality of winding fins of the secondary winding are interleaved among the multiple turns of the primary winding 204 around each of the plurality of magnetic cores (para. [0042]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the interleaved windings as taught by Andres to the power converter of Jacobs in view of Malinin to reduce fringing flux, thereby improving efficiency (para. [0005]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs in view of Malinin, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fei et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2019/0355506 A1)
With respect to claim 8, Jacobs in view of Malinin teaches the power converter according to claim 1. Jacobs in view of Malinin does not expressly teach
the current doubler rectifier output stage comprises a plurality of output phases;
a first primary winding and a first secondary winding of a first of the plurality of output phases extend around two of the plurality of magnetic cores; and
a second primary winding and a second secondary winding of a second of the plurality of output phases extend around another two of the plurality of magnetic cores.
Fei et al., hereinafter referred to as “Fei,” teaches a power converter (FIG. 1), wherein
the current doubler rectifier output stage (right side circuit from transformer 120-122) comprises a plurality of output phases;
a first primary winding (primary winding of transformer 120) and a first secondary winding (secondary winding of transformer 120) of a first of the plurality of output phases extend around two of the plurality of magnetic cores (FIGs. 6 an d7); and
a second primary winding (primary winding of transformer 121) and a second secondary winding (secondary winding of second transformer 121) of a second of the plurality of output phases extend around another two of the plurality of magnetic cores (para. [0037]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the plurality of output phases as taught by Fei to the power converter of Jacobs in view of Malinin to provide constant power supply.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs in view of Malinin, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Spinella et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2023/0343504 A1).
With respect to claim 10, Jacobs in view of Malinin teaches the power converter according to claim 9. Jacobs in view of Malinin does not expressly teach each of the plurality of magnetic cores comprises an air gap between the side legs and no air gap between the center leg.
Spinella et al., hereinafter referred to as “Spinella,” teaches a power converter 1 (FIGURE 3), wherein each of the plurality of magnetic cores 12 comprises an air gap 13 and 14 between the side legs (outer legs) and no air gap between the center leg (middle leg) (para. [0103]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the magnetic gap as taught by Spinella to the power converter of Jacobs in view of Malinin to provide the required magnetic saturation characteristics to meet design requirements.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs in view of Malinin, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Sigamani et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2023/0387810 A1).
With respect to claim 11, Jacobs in view of Malinin teaches the power converter according to claim 9. Jacobs in view of Malinin does not expressly teach each of the plurality of magnetic cores comprises an air gap between the center leg and no air gap between the side legs.
Sigamani et al., hereinafter referred to as “Sigamani,” teaches a power converter (FIG. 4), wherein each of the plurality of magnetic cores 334 comprises an air gap 350 between the center leg 347 and no air gap between the side legs 348 and 349 (para. [0033]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the magnetic gap as taught by Sigamani to the power converter of Jacobs in view of Malinin to provide the required magnetic saturation characteristics to meet design requirements.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Njiende et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2018/0197673A1) in view of Xu et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2007/0175701 A1).
With respect to claim 18, Njiende et al., hereinafter referred to as “Njiende,” teaches a power converter 800 (Fig. 13), comprising:
a switched bridged input stage 802 (annotated Fig. 13); and
a current doubler rectifier output stage 804, the current doubler rectifier output stage comprising an integrated transformer 803, wherein:
the integrated transformer comprises a magnetic core 812 and 813;
the magnetic core comprises two central legs821.2 and 821.3; and
a primary winding 806.1 and or 806.2 and a secondary winding 807.1 and or 807.2 of the integrated transformer extend around the two central legs (paras. [0037] and [0038]).
PNG
media_image2.png
386
521
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Njiende does not expressly teach the magnetic core comprises two twisted central legs.
Xu et al., hereinafter referred to as “Xu,” teaches a power converter (Fig. 10), wherein
the magnetic core comprises two twisted central legs 54a and 54b (para. [0045]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the twisted core legs as taught by Xu to the power converter of Jacobs to reduce the windings length, thereby decreasing the ohmic resistance (para. [0045]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Njiende in view of Xu, as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Andres.
With respect to claim 19, Njiende in view of Xu teaches the power converter according to claim 18, wherein:
the primary winding comprises multiple turns extending around each of the two twisted central legs (Andres, para. [0038], Xu, para. [0035]). Njiende in view of Xu does not expressly teach
the secondary winding comprises a plurality of winding fins;
each of the plurality of winding fins extending a single turn around each of the two twisted central legs; and
the plurality of winding fins of the secondary winding are interleaved among the multiple turns of the primary winding around each of the two twisted central legs.
Andres teaches a power converter (FIG.2), wherein
the secondary winding 206 and or 208 comprises a plurality of winding fins (turns);
each of the plurality of winding fins extending a single turn around each of the plurality of magnetic cores (core legs); and
the plurality of winding fins of the secondary winding are interleaved among the multiple turns of the primary winding 204 around each of the plurality of magnetic cores (para. [0042]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the interleaved windings as taught by Andres to the power converter of Njiende in view of Xu to reduce fringing flux, thereby improving efficiency (para. [0005]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Njiende in view of Xu, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Fei.
With respect to claim 20, Njiende in view of Xu teaches the power converter according to claim 18. Njiende in view of Xu does not expressly teach
the current doubler rectifier output stage comprises a plurality of output phases;
the magnetic core comprises four twisted central legs; and
primary and secondary windings of a first output phase among the plurality of output phases of the current doubler rectifier output stage extend around two twisted central legs of the four twisted central legs; and
primary and secondary windings of a second output phase among the plurality of output phases of the current doubler rectifier output stage extend around another two twisted central legs of the four twisted central legs.
Fei teaches a power converter (FIG. 1), wherein
the current doubler rectifier output stage (right side circuit from transformer 120-122) comprises a plurality of output phases;
a first primary winding (primary winding of transformer 120) and a first secondary winding (secondary winding of transformer 120) of a first of the plurality of output phases extend around two of the plurality of magnetic cores (FIGs. 6 and 7); and
a second primary winding (primary winding of transformer 121) and a second secondary winding (secondary winding of second transformer 121) of a second of the plurality of output phases extend around another two of the plurality of magnetic cores (para. [0037]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the plurality of output phases as taught by Fei to the power converter of Njiende in view of Xu to provide constant power supply.
Claim 15 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs in view of Sigamani et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2023/0387810 A1).
With respect to claim 15, Jacobs teaches current doubler rectifier (FIGURE 11), comprising:
an integrated transformer T1; and
a coupling inductor Lrc; wherein:
the integrated transformer comprises a plurality of magnetic cores 701 and or 702 (see FIGURE 8 for illustration);
a primary winding Np and a secondary winding Ns;
the integrated transformer further comprises a plurality of coupling windings Nrc1 and Nrc2; and
the coupling inductor is electrically coupled with the plurality of coupling windings to set a coupling coefficient among the legs of the plurality of magnetic cores (paras. [0064]-[0069]). Jacobs does not expressly teach a primary winding and a secondary winding of the integrated transformer extend around legs of each of the plurality of magnetic cores;
the integrated transformer further comprises a plurality of coupling windings and that extend extends around auxiliary legs of each of the plurality of magnetic cores.
Sigamani et al., hereinafter referred to as “Sigamani” teaches a current doubler rectifier (FIG. 6), wherein
a primary winding 314 and or 321 and a secondary winding 325 and or 326 of the integrated transformer extend around legs 336 of each of the plurality of magnetic cores 334;
the integrated transformer further comprises a plurality of coupling windings 317 and 319 and that extend extends around auxiliary legs 337 and8 and 338 of each of the plurality of magnetic cores (paras. [0035] and [0036]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the windings on different legs as taught by Sigamani to the current doubler rectifier of Jacobs to provide the desired flux density or magnetic path (para. 0037]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANGTIN LIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0800-1700.
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, Shawki S. Ismail can be reached at 571-272-3985. 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.
/MANG TIN BIK LIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights