DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Specie I, claims 1 and 3-20, in the reply filed on 11/03/2025 is acknowledged. Claim 2 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected specie, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “218” has been used to designate both the “second direction” and “third direction” (as outlined in the specification objection below). 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities1:
[0042]: both the “second direction” and “third direction” are indicated as reference character “218”, and thus different parts are given the same reference character. The specification should be amended to give the elements different reference characters. The Office further notes that figures should also be amended in order to reflect the amendments to the specification.
The Office requests Applicant’s cooperation with reviewing the specification and correcting all remaining informalities present in the specification, but not made of record above. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Peterson (US 20250063700).
Regarding claim 1, Peterson discloses (Figs.1-1 and 1-2):
A computing module comprising: a first computing component (118) having a first operating temperature ([0032]: 118 can be a GPU, which will have an associated operating temperature that will define a "first operating temperature"); a second computing component (120) having a second operating temperature ([0032]: 120 can be an HBM, which will have an associated operating temperature that will define a "second operating temperature"), wherein the first operating temperature is greater than the second operating temperature ([0032]: 118 is a GPU and 120 is a HBM, and as defined in Applicant's specification, a GPU will have a greater operating temperature, and thus the first operating temperature is greater than the second operating temperature); and a hybrid thermal management system (See Fig.1-2) comprising: a cooling delivery device (102, 104, and 106) configured to receive a cooling fluid ([0036] and [0039]: the "first coolant" and "second coolant" in combination will define the "cooling fluid"), the cooling delivery device (102, 104, and 106) defining: a first section (Fig.1-2: the central portions of 102 and 104 that cover 118) configured to dissipate heat generated by the first computing component (118) (Fig.1-2 and [0036]: the coolant running from 108 to 110, which passes through the first section, will dissipate heat generated by 118); and a second section (Fig.1-2: the end sections of 104 that correspond to 120) configured to dissipate heat generated by the second computing component (120) (Fig.1-2 and [0039]: the coolant running from 112 to 114, which passes through the second section, will dissipate heat generated by 120).
Regarding claim 20, Peterson further discloses:
Wherein the first computing component (118) is a graphics processing unit (GPU) ([0032]: 118 can be a GPU) and the second computing component (120) is a high-bandwidth memory (HBM) device ([0032]: 120 can be an HBM).
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.
Alternatively, claims 1, 3-9, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subrahmanyam (US 20190364691) in view of Gao (US 20230025167).
Regarding claim 1, Subrahmanyam discloses (Fig.1A):
A computing module comprising: a first computing component (114) having a first operating temperature ([0029]: 114 is a heat generating component, and will thus have an associated operating temperature that will define a "first operating temperature"); and a hybrid thermal management system (See Fig.1A) comprising: a cooling delivery device (104) configured to receive a cooling fluid ([0028]: "fluid"), the cooling delivery device (104) defining: a first section (See Figure Below) configured to dissipate heat generated by the first computing component (114) (Fig.1A: the bottom surface of 126, which defines the "first section", will dissipate the heat generated by 114).
PNG
media_image1.png
504
899
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Subrahmanyam does not disclose:
A second computing component having a second operating temperature, wherein the first operating temperature is greater than the second operating temperature; and a hybrid thermal management system comprising: a cooling delivery device configured to receive a cooling fluid, the cooling delivery device defining: a second section configured to dissipate heat generated by the second computing component.
Gao however teaches (Fig.3B):
See next page→
A second computing component (114) having a second operating temperature ([0065]: 114 will have an associated operating temperature that will define a "second operating temperature"), wherein the first operating temperature ([0065]: the operating temperature of 112) is greater than the second operating temperature (First Operating Temperature Greater than the Second Operating Temperature: [0065]); and a hybrid thermal management system (See Fig.3B) comprising: a cooling delivery device (220) configured to receive a cooling fluid ([0042] and [0053]: "...which coolant may flow"), the cooling delivery device (220) defining: a first section (See Figure Below- dissipates heat generated by 112) configured to dissipate heat generated by the first computing component (112); and a second section (See Figure Below- dissipates heat generated by 114) configured to dissipate heat generated by the second computing component (114).
PNG
media_image2.png
535
855
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See next page→
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Gao to modify the device of Subrahmanyam such that it has a second computing component, as suggested by Subrahmanyam ([0029]- clearly suggests that there can be a plurality of 114, and that each 114 can be a different kind of chip), that has a second operating temperature that is less than the first operating temperature and arranged such that the cooling delivery device also has a second section configured to dissipate heat generated by the second computing component, as claimed, in order to further optimize the cooling capabilities (i.e., a plurality of heat generating components can now be cooled using just a single thermal management device).
Regarding claim 3, Gao further teaches:
Wherein the second section (See Figure of Claim 1) is in fluid communication with the first section (See Figure of Claim 1) (See Figure of Claim 1: the coolant flows from the first section to the second section to cool 112 and 114 which means that the first section and second section have to communicate with each other, and thus the second section has to communicate with the first section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Gao to further modify the device of modified Subrahmanyam such that the second section is in fluid communication with the first section, as claimed, in order to achieve the optimized cooling capabilities as outlined in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Gao further teaches:
Wherein the cooling fluid ([0042] and [0053]: "...which coolant may flow") received by the cooling delivery device (220) is directed from the first section (See Figure of Claim 1) of the cooling delivery device (220) to the second section (See Figure of Claim 1) of the cooling delivery device (220) (See Figure of Claim 1: the coolant in 220 flows is flows from the first section to the second section, and thus directed from the first section to the second section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Gao to further modify the device of modified Subrahmanyam such that the cooling fluid received by the cooling delivery device is directed from the first section of the cooling delivery device to the second section of the cooling delivery device, as claimed, in order to achieve the optimized cooling capabilities as outlined in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Gao further teaches:
Wherein the second section (See Figure of Claim 1) of the cooling delivery device (220) is downstream of the first section (See Figure of Claim 1) of the cooling delivery device (220) (Second Section being Downstream of the First Section: See Figure of Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Gao to further modify the device of modified Subrahmanyam such that the second section of the cooling delivery device is downstream of the first section of the cooling delivery device, as claimed, in order to achieve the optimized cooling capabilities as outlined in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Subrahmanyam further discloses:
Wherein an inlet temperature of the cooling fluid ([0028]: "fluid") when received by the first section (See Figure of Claim 1) of the cooling delivery device (104) is less than the first operating temperature ([0029]: 114 is a heat generating component, and will thus have an associated operating temperature that will define a "first operating temperature") of the first computing component (114) (Inlet Temperature of Cooling Fluid Received by First Section less than First Operating Temperature of First Computing Component: Fig.1A- the temperature of the cooling fluid when received by the first section of 104 has to be less than the first operating temperature of 114 in order to cool 114).
Regarding claim 7, Gao further teaches:
Wherein an exhaust temperature (See Figure of Claim 1: the temperature of the cooling fluid on the inlet side of the second section) of the cooling fluid ([0042] and [0053]: "...which coolant may flow") entering the second section (See Figure of Claim 1) of the cooling delivery device (220) is greater than the inlet temperature (See Figure of Claim 1: the temperature of the cooling fluid on the inlet side of the first section) of the cooling fluid but less than the second operating temperature ([0065]: 114 will have an associated operating temperature that will define a "second operating temperature") of the second computing component (114) (See Figure of Claim 1 and [0065]: in order for 220 to cool 114, the exhaust temperature of the cooling fluid has to be less than the second operating temperature of 114 in order to cool 114, and has to be greater than the inlet temperature of the cooling fluid since the first computing component will raise the temperature of the cooling fluid, and thus resulting in the exhaust temperature of the cooling fluid being greater than the inlet temperature of the cooling fluid).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Gao to further modify the device of modified Subrahmanyam such that an exhaust temperature of the cooling fluid entering the second section of the cooling delivery device is greater than the inlet temperature of the cooling fluid but less than the second operating temperature of the second computing component, as claimed, in order to achieve the optimized cooling capabilities as outlined in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Subrahmanyam further discloses:
Wherein the first section (See Figure of Claim 1) of the cooling delivery device (104) further comprises an inlet manifold (120) configured to receive the cooling fluid ([0028]: "fluid") (Fig.1A: 120 receives the cooling fluid as represented by "121").
Regarding claim 9, Subrahmanyam further discloses:
Wherein the inlet manifold (120) is in fluid communication with a cooling fluid source (Fig.1A: 120 has to be in communication with some cooling fluid source in order to allow the coolant/cooling fluid to cool 114).
Regarding claim 15, Subrahmanyam further discloses:
Wherein, in operation, the first section (See Figure of Claim 1) of the cooling delivery device (104) is configured to receive the cooling fluid ([0028]: "fluid") in a first direction (Fig.1A: the vertical direction as represented by "121") and redirect the cooling fluid to a second direction (Fig.1A: the horizontal direction as represented by "123" and "125") that is substantially perpendicular (Fig.1: 121 is perpendicular to 123 and 125) with respect to the first direction.
Regarding claim 17, Subrahmanyam further discloses:
Wherein, in operation, the cooling fluid ([0028]: "fluid") received by the cooling delivery device (104) impinges (See Fig.1A) upon the first section (See Figure of Claim 1) of the cooling delivery device (104) and is directed laterally outward (Fig.1A: see the horizontal arrows represented by 123 and 125) along a surface (See Figure of Claim 1: the lateral outward direction is along a surface of the first section) of the first section.
Regarding claim 18, Gao further teaches:
Wherein the second computing component (114) is positioned proximate a first side (the right side of 112) of the first computing component (112) (Fig.3B: 114 is adjacent/close to/proximate to the right side of 112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Gao to further modify the device of modified Subrahmanyam such that the second computing component is positioned proximate a first side of the first computing component, as claimed, in order to achieve the optimized cooling capabilities as outlined in claim 1 above.
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subrahmanyam (US 20190364691) and Gao (US 20230025167) as applied to claims 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Zhou (CN 110662389).
Regarding claim 10, Subrahmanyam further discloses:
Wherein the first section (See Figure of Claim 1) of the cooling delivery device (104) further comprises an exhaust manifold (122 and 124).
However, modified Subrahmanyam does not teach:
Wherein the first section of the cooling delivery device further comprises an exhaust manifold configured to direct the cooling fluid from the first section of the cooling delivery device to the second section of the cooling delivery device.
Zhou however teaches (Fig.2):
A series of cooling plates (202) that are coupled to each other (See Fig.2):
See next page→
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Zhou to further modify the device of modified Subrahmanyam such that there are cooling plates connected on both sides of the cooling assembly of Subrahmanyam (i.e., attach cold plates to 122 and 124 of Subrahmanyam), so that the combination of the cold plates and the cooling assembly now defines the cooling delivery device, and to then provide the second computing component under one of the cold plates (i.e., attach the second computing component under the cold plate connected to 122 or 124) so that the cold plate coupled to the second computing component defines the “second section” so that the exhaust manifold of the cooling delivery device is configured to direct the cooling fluid from the first section of the cooling delivery device to the second section of the cooling delivery device, as claimed, in order to provide a more customized and targeted cooling structure, and thus improve the overall cooling capabilities (i.e., as opposed to using just a single plate to cool the components, which could result in undesired heat transfer between the two computing components, using individual cold plates for each computing component will ensure that the cold plates efficiently cool a corresponding computing component).
Regarding claim 16, modified Subrahmanyam does not teach:
Wherein the first section of the cooling delivery device is further configured to redirect the cooling fluid to a third direction opposite the first direction towards the second section of the cooling delivery device.
Zhou however teaches (Fig.2):
See next page→
A series of cold plates (202) that are fluidically coupled (See Fig.2) to each other, and the cooling fluid ([0078]: “the coolant”) being exhausted in a vertical direction (Fig.2: the fluid leaves one 202 in an upward vertical direction before entering another 202).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Zhou to further modify the device of modified Subrahmanyam such that it has cold plates that are attached to the outlets (122, 124) of Subrahmanyam, so that the combination of the cooling assembly (104) of Subrahmanyam and the cold plates defines the “cooling delivery device”, to then place the second computing component under one of the additional cold plates so that the cold plate that covers the second computing component defines the “second section”, and to then arrange it so that the cooling assembly (104) of Subrahmanyam has an upward vertical direction that defines the third direction that communicates with the cold plate that has the second computing component so that the cooling delivery device is further configured to redirect the cooling fluid to a third direction opposite the first direction towards the second section of the cooling delivery device, as claimed, in order to provide a more customized and targeted cooling structure, and thus improve the overall cooling capabilities (i.e., as opposed to using just a single plate to cool the components, which could result in undesired heat transfer between the two computing components, using individual cold plates for each computing component will ensure that the cold plates efficiently cool a corresponding computing component).
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subrahmanyam (US 20190364691) and Gao (US 20230025167) as applied to claims 3 and 18 above, and further in view of Rider (US 20220240417).
Regarding claim 11, modified Subrahmanyam does not teach:
Wherein the first section of the cooling delivery device further defines one or more microfluidic channels that at least partially support the cooling fluid therein.
Rider however teaches (Fig.3):
Wherein the first section (308a) of the cooling delivery device (204) further defines one or more microfluidic channels ([0031]: "Each of the fluid passage zones 308a, 308b, 308c may include multiple micro channels") that at least partially support the cooling fluid ([0031]: "the fluid") therein (Fig.3 and [0031]: the micro channels will support the cooling fluid).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Rider to further modify the device of modified Subrahmanyam such that the first section of the cooling delivery device defines one or more microfluidic channels that at least partially support the cooling fluid, as claimed, in order to further optimize the heat dissipation capabilities due to the microchannels providing an improved means of absorbing heat as suggested by Rider ([0031]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Subrahmanyam does not teach:
A third computing component disposed on a second side of the first computing component, the cooling delivery device further comprising a third section in fluid communication with the first section and configured to dissipate heat generated by the third computing component.
Rider however teaches (Fig.3):
A third computing component (202a) disposed on a second side (left side of 202b) of the first computing component (202b), the cooling delivery device (204) further comprising a third section (308a) in fluid communication with the first section (308b) and configured to dissipate heat generated by the third computing component (202a) (Fig.3 and [0029]: the fluid entering 210b flows into 308b, which can flow to 308a since the fluid has to be expelled via 310, and thus 308a can be in fluid communication with 308b in order to dissipate heat from 202a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Rider to further modify the device of modified Subrahmanyam such that it has a third computing component that is disposed on a second side of the first computing component and arranged so that the cooling delivery device further comprising a third section in fluid communication with the first section and configured to dissipate heat generated by the third computing component, as claimed, in order to further optimize the cooling capabilities (i.e., the cooling device can now cool a greater number of heat generating components using just a single cooling structure).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subrahmanyam (US 20190364691), Gao (US 20230025167), and Rider (US 20220240417) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Madison (US 20100328892) and Tilton (US 20050185378).
Regarding claim 12, Subrahmanyam further discloses:
A die (die of 114) of the first computing component (114).
However, modified Subrahmanyam does not teach:
Wherein the one or more microfluidic channels are etched into a surface of a die of the first computing component.
Madison however teaches (Fig.5):
A cooling block (120) that is directly integrated with a heat generating component (112) to provide direct cooling ([0035]) for the heat generating component (112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Madison to further modify the device of modified Subrahmanyam such that the first computing component is directly integrated into the cooling delivery device (i.e., directly integrate the cooling delivery device such that the upper surface of the first computer component is used to help define the first section) in order to further improve cooling of the first computing component due the first computing component now being directly cooled by the cooling fluid.
However, the above combination would still fail to teach:
Wherein the one or more microfluidic channels are etched into a surface of a die of the first computing component.
Tilton however teaches (Fig.5):
Wherein the one or more microfluidic channels ([0046]: “etched microchannels on the top surface of chip 2”) are etched into a surface (upper surface of the die of 2) of a die (die of 2) of the first computing component (2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Tilton to further modify the device of modified Subrahmanyam such that the one or more microfluidic channels are etched into a surface of a die of the first computing component, as claimed, in order to achieve the optimized heat dissipation capabilities as outlined in claim 11 (i.e., the modified structure now provides the one or more microfluidic channels on the first computing component as opposed to the cooling delivery device, which is simply an alternative structure that will still achieve the optimized heat dissipation capabilities taught by Rider, as outlined in clam 11 above, since the one or more microchannels are still being utilized the same exact way and will also achieve the improved direct cooling of the first computing component as modified above).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subrahmanyam (US 20190364691), Gao (US 20230025167), and Rider (US 20220240417) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Zhou (CN 110662389).
Regarding claim 13, modified Subrahmanyam does not teach:
Wherein the second section of the cooling delivery device further defines a cooling plate.
Zhou however teaches (Fig.2):
Wherein the second section (See Figure Below) of the cooling delivery device (202) further defines a cooling plate (See Figure Below- the second section of the cooling delivery device is a cooling plate).
PNG
media_image3.png
343
892
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Zhou to further modify the device of modified Subrahmanyam such that the second section of the cooling delivery device further defines a cooling plate (i.e., insert a cold plate to 122 and/or 124 so that the combination of the cooling assembly of 104 of Subrahmanyam and the cold plate defines the “cooling delivery device”, and to attach the second computing component to the cold plate so that the cold plate defines the “second section”), as claimed, in order to provide a more customized and targeted cooling structure, and thus improve the overall cooling capabilities (i.e., as opposed to using just a single plate to cool the components, which could result in undesired heat transfer between the two computing components, using individual cold plates for each computing component will ensure that the cold plates efficiently cool a corresponding computing component).
Regarding claim 14, Zhou further teaches:
Wherein the cooling plate (See Figure of Claim 13- the second section of the cooling delivery device is a cooling plate) is configured to substantially seal the first computing component (See Figure of Claim 13: the 100 affiliated with the “First Section”) from incursion of the cooling fluid ([0078]: “the coolant”) within the cooling delivery device (202) (as outlined in paragraph [0045] of Applicant’s specification, see US PG-Pub version of Applicant’s specification, the use of a cold plate will achieve the function of substantially sealing the first computing component from incursion of the cooling fluid within the cooling delivery device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Zhou to further modify the device of modified Subrahmanyam such that the cooling plate is configured to substantially seal the first computing from incursion of the cooling fluid within the cooling delivery device, as claimed, in order to achieve the improved cooling capabilities as outlined in claim 13 above.
See next page→
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20240260228: teaches how it is known in the art to utilize a coolant that has a temperature that is lower than operating temperatures of electronic components.
US 20240215205: teaches a hybrid cooling system that cools GPUs and High Bandwidth Memory.
US 20240196562: teaches a cold plate that is utilized to cool high heat generating components and low heat generating components.
US 20230420338: teaches cooling of GPUs and HBMs.
US 20220256684: teaches a cooling plate that cools GPUs and HBMs.
US 20220201896: teaches a series of cold plates that communicate with each other.
US 20030151896: teaches a die that is etched to have micro-channels for fluid flow.
US 5349831: teaches a cooling assembly that directs coolant in a first direction and a third direction that is opposite to the first direction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN S SUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1243. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at (571) 272-3740. 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.
/STEPHEN S SUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835
1 Examiner’s Note: all paragraph citations are with respect to the US PG-Pub version of Applicant’s specification.