DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Amendment
2. Applicant’s amendments, filed 28 January 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been entered. The rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments, filed 28 January 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
4. Applicant argues that Gachter discloses a mount 100, 200 for holding a sample carrier 310, and that these mounts are separate components, not sample carriers themselves. The argument is not persuasive. During examination, claims are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI). Under BRI, a “mount” that is structurally configured to hold and carry a sample corresponds to and inherently functions a “sample carrier”.
5. Applicant argues that the outer edge of the mount 200 has the same thickness as portions of the mount 200 inboard of the outer edge and that the mount 200 does not have an outer edge that is thicker than a central portion. The argument is not persuasive. While applicant’s observation regarding the mount 200 in fig. 3 is fully considered, the mount 200 does exhibit the claimed thickness differential. Specifically, fig. 3 shows that the outer edge of mount 200 is thicker than the base plate that corresponds to the central portion surrounding the opening.
Gachter [0069] teaches that cartridge 200 has a round outer edge 210 and that the remaining features of cartridge 200 are analogous to those of cartridge 100. In mount 100, the base plate 101 corresponds to the central portion surrounding the central opening 103. The cover plate 102 in combination with the base plate 101 corresponds to the outer edge, which is thicker than the base plate 101 that corresponds to the central portion.
6. Applicant argues that the combination of a circular body and thicker outer edge recited in claim 1 provides a carrier that advantageously provides a tomography tilt range of +/- 70 degrees without shadowing the lamella and can be positioned without the use of a c-clip ring. This results in both improved visualization of the sample and a reduction in mechanical and thermal instabilities. The argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive. The features of providing a specific tilt range, avoiding shadowing, and reducing instabilities represent intended uses. However, since Gachter discloses the same physical structure, the intended uses do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. Accordingly, Gachter, Parmenter, and Krause, in combination, do disclose each and every element of amended claims 1 and 17.
7. While applicant’s arguments regarding claim interpretation and the teachings of Gachter are not persuasive, the previous rejections of claims 1, 17, and their dependents under 35 U.S.C. 103 and 35 U.S.C. 102 are withdrawn since the claim scope has changed. Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 17 have necessitated new grounds of rejection as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
9. Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gachter (US 20120132828 A1).
10. Regarding claim 1:
Gachter discloses a sample carrier for a charged particle microscope ([0002] teaches a mount for holding an electron microscopy sample carrier. [0060] teaches a cartridge, fig. 1 element 100, for holding an electron microscopy sample carrier. The claimed “sample carrier” corresponds to the cartridge assembly, fig. 1 element 100), the sample carrier comprising: a planar or substantially planar body ([0060] teaches that the cartridge, fig. 1 element 100, comprises a planar base plate, fig. 1 element 101) , wherein the planar or substantially planar body is substantially circular (fig. 3 shows that mount 200 is substantially circular. [0069] teaches that cartridge 200 has a round outer edge); an opening provided in the planar or substantially planar body ([0060] teaches an aperture, fig. 1 element 103, extending through base plate, fig. 1 element 101); and at least one protrusion extending into the opening within a plane defined by the planar or substantially planar body, wherein the protrusion is configured to hold a charged particle microscopy sample ([0061] teaches that the base plate, fig. 1 element 101, comprises a support surface, fig. 1 element 107, extending partly around aperture, fig. 1 element 103, for an electron microscopy sample carrier), wherein the planar or substantially planar body comprises a central portion and an outer edge, and wherein the outer edge is thicker than the central portion and the opening is provided in the central portion (fig. 3 shows that the outer edge of mount 200 is thicker than the base plate that corresponds to the central portion surrounding the opening. [0069] teaches that cartridge 200 has a round outer edge 210 and that the remaining features of cartridge 200 are analogous to those of cartridge 100. In mount 100, the base plate 101 corresponds to the central portion surrounding the central opening 103. The cover plate 102 in combination with the base plate 101 corresponds to the outer edge, which is thicker than the base plate 101 that corresponds to the central portion).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claim 1-2, 4, 12, 14, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Parmenter (Journal of Microscopy, Vol. 281, Issue 2 2021, pp. 157–174) in view of Gachter.
14. Regarding claim 1:
Parmenter discloses a sample carrier for a charged particle microscope (pg. 157 introduction section teaches that the lamella is mounted on a support grid, which is the sample carrier, and can be transferred to the TEM), the sample carrier comprising: a planar or substantially planar body (fig. 16(A) teaches a solution to ‘one-piece’ handling of the lift out grid. The grid shown in fig. 16(A) has a planar or substantially planar body), wherein the planar or substantially planar body is substantially circular (as shown on pg. 172 fig. 16(A), the planar body of the ‘one-piece’ handling of the LO-grid is substantially circular); an opening provided in the planar or substantially planar body; and at least one protrusion extending into the opening within a plane defined by the planar or substantially planar body, wherein the protrusion is configured to hold a charged particle microscopy sample; wherein the planar or substantially planar body comprises a central portion and an outer edge (as shown on pg. 172 fig. 16(A), the planar body of the ‘one-piece’ handling of the LO-grid has a central portion surrounding the central opening. The most outer edge of the central portion surrounding the central opening corresponds to the outer edge).
Parmenter fails to disclose that wherein the outer edge is thicker than the central portion and the opening is provided in the central portion.
However, Gachter discloses that wherein the outer edge is thicker than the central portion and the opening is provided in the central portion (fig. 3 shows that the outer edge of mount 200 is thicker than the base plate that corresponds to the central portion surrounding the opening. [0069] teaches that cartridge 200 has a round outer edge 210 and that the remaining features of cartridge 200 are analogous to those of cartridge 100. In mount 100, the base plate 101 corresponds to the central portion surrounding the central opening 103. The cover plate 102 in combination with the base plate 101 corresponds to the outer edge, which is thicker than the base plate 101 that corresponds to the central portion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Parmenter in view of Gachter to include that wherein the outer edge is thicker than the central portion and the opening is provided in the central portion. Such modification would allow for access to the sample carrier and to the clip elements (as taught in Gachter [0033]) and a large tilt angle for viewing the sample surface (as taught in Gachter [0027]).
15. Regarding claim 2:
Parmenter in view of Gachter discloses the sample carrier of claim 1. Parmenter further discloses that wherein the opening comprises at least two protrusions extending into the opening within a plane defined by the planar or substantially planar body (fig. 16(A) teaches a grid where the opening comprises three protrusions extending into the opening).
16. Regarding claim 4:
Parmenter in view of Gachter discloses the sample carrier of claim 1. Parmenter further discloses that wherein the at least two protrusions are on the same side of the opening (fig. 16(A) teaches a grid with three posts on the same side of the opening).
17. Regarding claim 12:
Parmenter in view of Gachter discloses the sample carrier of claim 1. Parmenter further discloses that wherein the charged particle microscopy sample is a lift-out sample (pg. 157 introduction section teaches cryogenic-Lift-Out (cryo-LO) on a lamella mounted to a copper support post).
18. Regarding claim 14:
Parmenter in view of Gachter discloses the sample carrier of claim 1. Parmenter further discloses that wherein the charged particle microscope is a transmission electron microscope (pg. 157 summary teaches the Cryo-Lift-Out (cryo-LO) technique as preparation tool for cryogenic transmission electron microscopy).
19. Regarding claim 17:
Parmenter discloses a method of preparing a sample for inspection in a charged particle microscope (pg. 157 summary section teaches the Cryo-Lift- Out (cryo-LO) technique as preparation tool for cryogenic transmission electron microscopy), the method (fig. 3 provides a flowchart for the method) comprising: providing a sample carrier (pg. 157 introduction section teaches that the lamella is mounted on a support grid, which is the sample carrier), the sample carrier including a planar or substantially planar body (fig. 16(A) teaches a solution to ‘one-piece’ handling of the lift out grid. The grid shown in fig. 16(A) has a planar or substantially planar body),
an opening provided in the planar or substantially planar body (the grid shown in fig. 16(A) has an opening in the body), and at least one protrusion extending into the opening within a plane defined by the planar or substantially planar body (the grid shown in fig. 16(a) has 3 protrusions extending into the opening within a plane),
wherein the protrusion is configured to hold a charged particle microscopy sample (pg. 164 teaches that the lamellae are usually mounted on top of the posts, which is the protrusion), wherein the planar or substantially planar body is substantially circular (as shown on pg. 172 fig. 16(A), the planar body of the ‘one-piece’ handling of the LO-grid is substantially circular) and comprises a central portion and an outer edge (as shown on pg. 172 fig. 16(A), the planar body of the ‘one-piece’ handling of the LO-grid has a central portion surrounding the central opening. The most outer edge of the central portion surrounding the central opening corresponds to the outer edge); connecting the sample carrier to a mechanical stage device of the charged particle microscope (pg. 165 Transfer to the TEM section teaches that the LO-grid can be moved directly to the hold of a TEM rod for analysis); providing the charged particle microscopy sample (pg. 164 teaches the process of providing the sample); and connecting the sample to a grid member of the sample carrier (pg. 164 teaches attaching the lamella to the LO-grid).
Parmenter fails to disclose that wherein the outer edge is thicker than the central portion and the opening is provided in the central portion.
However, Gachter discloses that wherein the outer edge is thicker than the central portion and the opening is provided in the central portion (fig. 3 shows that the outer edge of mount 200 is thicker than the base plate that corresponds to the central portion surrounding the opening. [0069] teaches that cartridge 200 has a round outer edge 210 and that the remaining features of cartridge 200 are analogous to those of cartridge 100. In mount 100, the base plate 101 corresponds to the central portion surrounding the central opening 103. The cover plate 102 in combination with the base plate 101 corresponds to the outer edge, which is thicker than the base plate 101 that corresponds to the central portion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Parmenter in view of Gachter to include that wherein the outer edge is thicker than the central portion and the opening is provided in the central portion. Such modification would allow for access to the sample carrier and to the clip elements (as taught in Gachter [0033]) and a large tilt angle for viewing the sample surface (as taught in Gachter [0027]).
20. Regarding claim 18:
Parmenter in view of Gachter discloses the method of claim 17. Parmenter further discloses wherein the sample is a lift-out sample (pg. 157 introduction section teaches cryogenic-Lift-Out (cryo-LO) on a lamella mounted to a copper support post).
21. Regarding claim 19:
Parmenter in view of Gachter discloses the method according to claim 17. Parmenter further discloses that wherein the charged particle microscope is a transmission electron microscope (pg. 157 summary teaches the Cryo-Lift-Out (cryo-LO) technique as preparation tool for cryogenic transmission electron microscopy).
22. Regarding claim 20:
Parmenter in view of Gachter discloses the method of claim 19. Parmenter further discloses that wherein the transmission electron microscope is a cryo-TEM (pg. 157 summary teaches the Cryo-Lift-Out (cryo-LO) technique as preparation tool for cryogenic transmission electron microscopy).
23. Claim 1, 2, 5, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Krause (US 10591393 B2) in view of Gachter.
24. Regarding claim 1:
Krause discloses a sample carrier (fig. 6) for a charged particle microscope, the sample carrier comprising: a planar or substantially planar body (the sample holder as shown in fig. 6 has a planar body); an opening provided in the planar or substantially planar body (the sample holder as shown in fig. 6 has an opening in the planar body); and at least one protrusion extending into the opening within a plane defined by the planar or substantially planar body (the sample holder as shown in fig. 6 has four protrusions extending into the opening), wherein the protrusion is configured to hold a charged particle microscopy sample (column 18 lines 32-37 teaches that two identical accommodation structures, fig. 5 element ASTl, AST2, which are the protrusions, to accommodate a sample body. Column 4 lines 42-47 defines “sample” as a unit to be installed into a sample accommodation system of a TEM); wherein the planar or substantially planar body comprises a central portion and an outer edge (as shown in fig. 6 the central portion is the immediate region surrounding the opening, and the outer edge of PH1 and PH2 corresponds to the outer edge).
Krause fails to disclose that wherein the planar or substantially planar body is substantially circular, and wherein the outer edge is thicker than the central portion and the opening is provided in the central portion.
However, Gachter discloses that wherein the planar or substantially planar body is substantially circular, and wherein the outer edge is thicker than the central portion and the opening is provided in the central portion (as shown in fig. 3, mount 200 is substantially planar and circular. [0069] teaches that cartridge 200 has a round outer edge 210 and that the remaining features of cartridge 200 are analogous to those of cartridge 100. In mount 100, the base plate 101 corresponds to the central portion surrounding the central opening 103. The cover plate 102 in combination with the base plate 101 corresponds to the outer edge, which is thicker than the base plate 101 that corresponds to the central portion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Krause in view of Gachter to include that wherein the planar or substantially planar body is substantially circular, and wherein the outer edge is thicker than the central portion and the opening is provided in the central portion. Such modification would allow for stable tilting of the specimen around one or more axes (as taught in Gachter [0038]), access to the sample carrier and to the clip elements (as taught in Gachter [0033]) and a large tilt angle for viewing the sample surface (as taught in Gachter [0027]).
25. Regarding claim 2:
Krause in view of Gachter discloses the sample carrier of claim 1. Krause further discloses that wherein the opening comprises at least two protrusions extending into the opening within a plane defined by the planar or substantially planar body (the sample holder as shown in fig. 6 has four protrusions extending into the opening).
26. Regarding claim 5:
Krause in view of Gachter discloses the sample carrier of claim 2. Krause further discloses that wherein the at least two protrusions are on the opposite sides of the opening (fig. 6 teaches that the protrusions are placed on the opposite sides of the opening).
27. Regarding claim 10:
Krause in view of Gachter discloses the sample carrier of claim 1. Krause further discloses that wherein the opening is centrally located in the planar or substantially planar body (fig. 6 teaches that the opening is centrally located in the planar body).
28. Regarding claim 11:
Krause in view of Gachter discloses the sample carrier of claim 1. Krause further discloses that wherein the opening is substantially rectangular (fig. 6 teaches that the opening is substantially rectangular).
29. Claims 3, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Parmenter in view of Gachter, further in view of Kaneko (JP 2019169334 A).
30. Regarding claim 3:
Parmenter in view of Gachter discloses the sample carrier of claim 2.
Parmenter in view of Gachter fails to disclose that wherein the at least two protrusions are staggered.
However, Kaneko discloses that wherein the at least two protrusions are staggered (fig. 6A, 6B teach that the at least two protrusions are staggered).
The inventions are analogous because they are directed towards a sample carrier for use in a charged particle microscope (Parmenter pg. 172, fig. 16 teaches various LO-grid transfer to cryo-TEM. Kaneko description section teaches a sample holder for mounting a sample observed with a transmission electron microscope). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Parmenter in view Gachter, further in view of Kaneko to include that wherein the at least two protrusions are staggered. Such modification would allow increasing the number of attached samples and reducing the influence of the focused ion beam thinning process (as taught in Kaneko [0031] and [0032]).
31. Regarding claim 8:
Parmenter in view Gachter, further in view of Kaneko discloses the sample carrier of claim 3. Parmenter in view of Gachter fails to disclose that wherein the at least two protrusions are staggered in a direction substantially orthogonal to the planar body.
However, Kaneko discloses that wherein the at least two protrusions are staggered in a direction substantially orthogonal to the planar body ([0031] teaches that the plurality of mounting pillars, fig. 6B element 3, are arranged stepwise in the thickness direction T, which is orthogonal to the planar body).
The inventions are analogous because they are directed towards a sample carrier for use in a charged particle microscope. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Parmenter in view Gachter, further in view of Kaneko to include that wherein the at least two protrusions are staggered in a direction substantially orthogonal to the planar body. Such modification would allow increasing the number of attached samples, and a sample that is long in the lateral direction X can be attached (as taught in [0031]).
32. Regarding claim 9:
Parmenter in view of Gachter, further in view of Kaneko discloses the sample carrier of claim 3. Parmenter in view of Gachter fails to disclose that wherein the at least two protrusions are staggered in a direction substantially parallel to the planar body.
However, Kaneko discloses that that wherein the at least two protrusions are staggered in a direction substantially parallel to the planar body ([0032] teaches making the mounting pillars, fig. 6A element 3, different in length in the longitudinal direction Y, which is parallel to the planar body).
The inventions are analogous because they are directed towards a sample carrier for use in a charged particle microscope. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Parmenter in view of Gachter, further in view of Kaneko to include that wherein the at least two protrusions are staggered in a direction substantially parallel to the planar body. Such modification would reduce the influence of the focused ion beam thinning process (as taught in [0032]).
33. Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Krause in view of Gachter.
34. Regarding claim 6:
Krause in view of Gachter discloses the sample carrier of claim 5. Krause in view of Gachter does not specifically disclose that wherein the at least two protrusions are inversely mirrored on opposing sides of the opening. However, Krause discloses that the geometry of the sample body holder can be changed to adapt specific needs (column 5 lines 46-49 teaches that the sample body holder can, in principle, have a free design, in particular such that it fits to accommodation structures in devices for subsequent method steps and for the actual microstructure examination).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Krause in view of Gachter to include that wherein the at least two protrusions are inversely mirrored on opposing sides of the opening. Such modification would allow the sample holder to accommodate structures in devices for subsequent method steps and for the actual microstructure examination (as taught in Krause column 5 lines 46-49) and increasing not only the efficiency of the preparation, but also the efficiency of the subsequent analysis (as taught in Krause column 18 lines 45-48).
35. Regarding claim 7:
Krause in view of Gachter discloses the sample carrier of claim 5. Krause in view of Gachter does not specifically disclose that the at least two protrusions located on opposite sides are positioned to not be directly opposite, However, Krause discloses that the geometry of the sample body holder can be changed to adapt specific needs (column 5 lines 46-49 teaches that the sample body holder can, in principle, have a free design, in particular such that it fits to accommodation structures in devices for subsequent method steps and for the actual microstructure examination).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Krause in view of Gachter to include that wherein the at least two protrusions are positioned to not be directly opposite on opposing sides of the opening. Such modification would allow the sample holder to accommodate structures in devices for subsequent method steps and for the actual microstructure examination (as taught in Krause column 5 lines 46-49) and increasing not only the efficiency of the preparation, but also the efficiency of the subsequent analysis (as taught in Krause column 18 lines 45-48).
36. Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Gachter in view of Parmenter.
37. Regarding claim 15:
Gachter discloses the sample carrier of claim 1. Gachter further discloses that wherein the carrier includes an integral mechanical support contour ([0060] teaches that the cartridge, fig. 1 element 100 comprises a cover plate, fig. 1 element 102).
Gachter fails to discloses that wherein the carrier is formed from a single metal piece.
However, Parmenter discloses that wherein the carrier is formed from a single metal piece (fig. 16(A) teaches a ‘one-piece’ handling of the LO-grid. Pg. 164 teaches that most LO-grids are made from copper).
The inventions are analogous because they are directed towards a sample carrier for use in a charged particle microscope (Gachter [0013] teaches a mount for an electron
microscopy sample carrier with which stable, stress-free retention of the sample carrier is possible. Parmenter pg. 172, fig. 16 teaches various LO-grid transfer to cryo-TEM). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gachter in view of Parmenter to include that wherein the carrier is formed from a single metal piece. Such modification would allow minimizing handling the lift-out grid (as taught in Parmenter pg. 171 first paragraph) and the use of metal allow efficient cooling and keeping the sample at a desired temperature (as taught in Parmenter pg. 169).
36. Regarding claim 16:
Gachter in view of Parmenter discloses the sample carrier of claim 15. Gachter fails to disclose that wherein the metal piece is copper.
However, Parmenter discloses that wherein the metal piece is copper (Pg. 164 teaches that most LO-grids are made from copper).
The inventions are analogous because they are directed towards a sample carrier for use in a charged particle microscope. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gachter in view of Parmenter to include that wherein the metal piece is copper. Copper is known for its cost effectiveness and good thermal conductivity. Such modification would allow efficient cooling and keeping the sample at a desired temperature (as taught in Parmenter pg. 169).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY LI whose telephone number is (571) 272-5043. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-4:30pm. 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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571) 272-2293. 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.
/LARRY LI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881