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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding clam 3: Claim 3 recites “for a first multicore optical fiber in the plurality of multicore optical fibers, the plurality of core regions comprises from three to eight core regions”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2: Claim 2 recites that the core region density is “up to” 350 cores/mm^2. It is unclear whether this means that the core region density must reach 350 cores/mm^2 somewhere in the fiber, or if it means that the core region density is less than or equal to 350 cores/mm^2. For the purpose of examination, “up to” is interpreted as “less than or equal to”.
Regarding claim 4: Claim 4 recites “the plurality of multicore optical fibers fill up to 90% of the cross-sectional area of the cable core. It is unclear whether this means that the plurality of multicore fibers must fill 90% of the cross-sectional area of the cable core somewhere in the fiber, or if it means that the plurality of multicore optical fibers fill an area less than or equal to 90% of the cross-sectional area of the cable core. For the purpose of examination, “up to” is interpreted as “less than or equal to”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 10-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (US Patent No. 10,139,559; hereinafter Hayashi ‘559).
Regarding claim 1: Hayashi ‘559 disclosesAn optical fiber cable (Fig. 37A-B, cable 300), comprising: a cable jacket (Fig. 37A-B, cable jacket 200) comprising an inner surface (Fig. 37A-B, inner surface of cable jacket 200) and an outer surface (Fig. 37A-B, outer surface of cable jacket 200), wherein the inner surface defines a central cable bore (Fig. 37A-B, central cable bore is the area inside the inner surface) and the outer surface defines an outermost surface of the optical fiber cable (Fig. 37A-B shows this); a cable core (Fig. 37A-B, the cable core is the area inside the inner surface of strength member 250, which is disposed in the central cable bore) disposed in the central cable bore, the cable core comprising a plurality of multicore optical fibers (Fig. 37A-B, the cable core comprises four MCFs 10), the cable core having a cross-sectional area (the four MCFs are inscribed in the cable core in a square configuration; call the radius of an MCF r, based on this configuration, the cable core has a radius of (1+sqrt(2))r; its cross sectional area is pi*((1+sqrt(2))r)^2), wherein the plurality of multicore optical fibers fill at least 50% of the cross-sectional area of the cable core (the cross-sectional area of four multicore optical fibers is 4*pi*r^2; the fibers therefore fill 4/((1+sqrt(2))^2=68% of the cross-sectional area of the cable core); wherein each multicore optical fiber of the plurality of multicore optical fibers comprises an inner glass region (Fig. 3, region containing cores 1 and cladding 4; col. 12, line 4 discloses cladding 4 comprised of silica-based glass and col. 11, line 66-67 discloses cores 1 are comprised of silica-based glass; additionally, this inner region is surrounded by a coating 5; therefore the region containing these components is considered to be an inner glass region) having a plurality of core regions (Fig. 3, cores 1) surrounded by a common outer cladding (Fig. 3, cladding 4).
Although Hayashi ‘559 does not disclose that the cable core is characterized by a core region density that is at least 40 core regions/mm^2, Hayashi ‘559 discloses that the inner glass regions have a diameter less than 126 microns (see col. 22, lines 64-65). Additionally, in another embodiment (Fig. 38), Hayashi ‘559 teaches that a plurality of MCFs 10 are arranged linearly at a pitch of 250 microns (see col. 26, lines 65-66). Based on this, the MCFs of this embodiment necessarily have a total diameter (including the coating 5) less than 250 microns. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to prepare the MCFs with total diameters less than 250 microns, as this size is shown within the disclosure to be appropriate for the fibers and maintaining such a size allows for a high density cable. In the embodiment of Fig. 37, MCFs having a diameter less than 250 microns corresponds to a cable core with a maximum cross-sectional area of 0.29mm^2, containing 32 cores (four MCFs each having 8 cores), or a minimum core region density of 112 core regions/mm^2.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood: Modified Hayashi ‘559 teaches the optical fiber cable of claim 1, as applied above. Hayashi ‘559 fails to disclose that the core region density is less than or equal to 350 core regions/mm^2. However, at minimum, the MCFs are disclosed to have an inner glass region with a diameter of 124 microns. If the coating had an infinitesimal thickness, the total diameter of the MCF would be a value greater than 124 microns, this corresponds to a minimum cross-sectional area of the cable core being 0.072mm^2, containing 32 core, or a maximum core region density of 447 cores/mm^2, overlapping the claimed range of less than or equal to 350 cores/mm^2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to prepare the optical fiber, as applied above, with any core region density between 112 and 447 cores/mm^2, including with a core region density of less than or equal to 350 cores/mm^2, based on the teachings of Hayashi ‘559.
Regarding claim 3: Modified Hayashi ‘559 teaches The optical fiber cable of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein, for a first multicore optical fiber in the plurality of multicore optical fibers, the plurality of core regions comprises from three to eight core regions (see Fig. 3, MCF 10 comprises eight core regions 1).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood: Modified Hayashi ‘559 teachesThe optical fiber cable of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the plurality of multicore optical fibers fill less than or equal to 90% of the cross-sectional area of the cable core (as described in the rejection of claim 1, the multicore optical fibers fill 68% of the cross-sectional area of the cable core, which is less than 90%).
Regarding claim 5: Modified Hayashi ‘559 teachesThe optical fiber cable of claim 1 (as applied above), further comprising a buffer tube (Fig. 37, strength member 250) having an interior surface (Fig. 37, strength member 250 has an interior surface) and an exterior surface (Fig. 37, strength member 250 has an exterior surface), wherein the interior surface of the buffer tube defines a diameter, the cross-sectional area of the cable core being the area of a circle having the diameter (see rejection of claim 1, this circle has a diameter of (1+sqrt(2))*2r and the cross-sectional area of the cable core is the area of this circle).
Regarding claim 10: Modified Hayashi ‘559 teachesThe optical fiber cable of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein a first core region of the plurality of core regions comprises a germania-doped silica core (see col. 12, lines 17-42) and a fluorine-doped silica trench (see col. 13, lines 51-52).
Regarding claim 11: Modified Hayashi ‘559 teaches the optical fiber cable of claim 10, as applied above. Hayashi ‘559 further teaches at least one embodiment wherein the fluorine-doped silica trench has a volume in the range of 30%Δ-µm^2 to 90%Δ-µm^2 (Sample #121, see col. 16, lines 4-5 and Fig. 9a; this corresponds to b=8.56 microns, c=14.0 microns, and (Δ3)-( Δ4)=-0.5%, corresponding to a volume of 30.5%Δ-µm^2. As Hayashi ‘559 discloses at least one embodiment wherein the trench has a volume falling within the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to prepare the modified Hayashi ‘559 device with a trench volume in the claimed range based on the teachings of the disclosure.
Regarding claim 12: Modified Hayashi ‘559 teaches the optical fiber cable of claim 1, as applied above. Modified Hayashi ‘559 further teaches that a first core region of the plurality of core regions has a mode field diameter between 8.0 microns and 10.1 microns at 1310 nm, overlapping the claimed range of greater than 8.2 microns at 1310 nm. Based on the teachings of Hayashi ‘559, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the optical fiber cable with a mode field diameter falling anywhere between 8 and 10.1 microns at 1310 nm, including a mode field diameter greater than 8.2 microns at 1310 nm.
Regarding claim 13: Modified Hayashi ‘559 teachesThe optical fiber cable of claim 12 (as applied above), wherein a first core region of the plurality of core regions has a cable cutoff wavelength of less than 1260 nm (see col. 13, lines 13-16).
Regarding claim 14: Modified Hayashi ‘559 teachesThe optical fiber cable of claim 13 (as applied above), wherein a first core region of the plurality of core regions has a zero dispersion wavelength of less than 1335 nm (between 1300 and 1324 nm, see col. 13, line 8; this entire disclosed range falls within the claimed range of less than 1335 nm).
Regarding claim 15: Modified Hayashi ‘559 teachesThe optical fiber cable of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the inner glass region of the first multicore optical fiber in the plurality of multicore optical fibers has an outer diameter of 120 microns to 130 microns (124-126 microns; see col. 22, lines 64-65).
Regarding claim 20: Modified Hayashi ‘559 teaches The optical fiber cable of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein cross-talk between any two of the plurality of core regions is less than -30 dB/100 km at 1310 nm (see Fig. 19B, XT at 1310nm, and Abstract).
Claims 9, 16, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (US Patent No. 10,139,559; hereinafter Hayashi ‘559) in view of Hayashi (US 2021/0003773; hereinafter Hayashi ‘773).
Regarding claim 9: Modified Hayashi ‘559 teaches the optical fiber cable of claim 1. Hayashi ‘559 fails to disclose that a first multicore fiber of the plurality of multicore optical fibers is characterized by a fiber diameter of from 170 microns to 200 microns. However, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1, the plurality of multicore optical fibers of the modified Hayashi ‘559 device are characterized by a fiber diameter greater than 124 microns and 250 microns (see rejection of claim 1). Additionally, Hayashi ‘773, also related to multi-core optical fibers (see title and abstract), also having a common cladding with a diameter between 124 and 126 microns (see paragraph 0055), teaches a dual coating outside of the common cladding which has an outer diameter of 195 microns, falling within the claimed range of 170 to 200 microns and teaches that with a cladding diameter of 124 to 126 microns, this resin coating thickness is optimal for minimizing overall size without impairing optical characteristics and productivity (see paragraph 0066). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the multicore optical fibers with a diameter of 195 microns based on this teaching in order to provide a minimal overall thickness while ensuring sufficient optical characteristics and productivity, falling within the claimed range of 170 microns to 200 microns.
Regarding claim 16: Modified Hayashi ‘559 teaches the optical fiber of claim 1, as applied above. Modified Hayashi ‘559 teaches the claimed invention except that in Hayashi ‘559, a single layer coating is used instead of a two-layer coating. Hayashi ‘773 shows that a two-layer coating is an equivalent structure in the art (see paragraph 0081). Therefore, because these two coatings were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a two-layer coating, which is a coating layer (Hayashi ‘773, Fig. 1, coating 310) that comprises a primary coating layer (Hayashi ‘773, Fig. 1, coating 310) and a secondary coating layer (Hayashi ‘773, Fig. 1, coating 320) surrounding the primary coating layer, for a single-layer coating (See MPEP §2144.06).
Regarding claim 21: Hayashi ‘559 disclosesAn optical fiber cable (Fig. 37A-B, cable 300), comprising: a cable jacket (Fig. 37A-B, cable jacket 200) comprising an inner surface (Fig. 37A-B, inner surface of cable jacket 200) and an outer surface (Fig. 37A-B, outer surface of cable jacket 200), wherein the inner surface defines a central cable bore (Fig. 37A-B, central cable bore is the area inside the inner surface) and the outer surface defines an outermost surface of the optical fiber cable (Fig. 37A-B shows this); a buffer tube (Fig. 37, strength member 250) comprising an interior surface (Fig. 37, strength member 250 has an interior surface) and an exterior surface (Fig. 37, strength member 250 has an exterior surface), the interior surface defining a cross-sectional area (see rejection of claim 1, this circle has a has a diameter of (1+sqrt(2))*2r and the cross-sectional area of the cable core is the area of this circle); a plurality of multicore optical fibers (Fig. 37A-B, the cable core comprises four MCFs 10), wherein the plurality of multicore optical fibers fill 50% to 90% of the cross-sectional area (as described in the rejection of claim 1, the multicore optical fibers fill 68% of the cross-sectional area); wherein a first multicore optical fiber of the plurality of multicore optical fibers comprises from three to eight core regions (see Fig. 3, MCF 10 comprises eight core regions 1) surrounded by a common outer cladding (Fig. 3, cladding 4).
Hayashi ‘559 fails to teach that the first multicore optical fiber of the plurality of multicore optical fibers comprises a fiber diameter of 170 microns to 200 microns. However, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1, the plurality of multicore optical fibers of the modified Hayashi ‘559 device are characterized by a fiber diameter greater than 124 microns and 250 microns (see rejection of claim 1). Additionally, Hayashi ‘773, also related to multi-core optical fibers (see title and abstract), also having a common cladding with a diameter between 124 and 126 microns (see paragraph 0055), teaches a dual coating outside of the common cladding which has an outer diameter of 195 microns, falling within the claimed range of 170 to 200 microns and teaches that with a cladding diameter of 124 to 126 microns, this resin coating thickness is optimal for minimizing overall size without impairing optical characteristics and productivity (see paragraph 0066). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the multicore optical fibers with a diameter of 195 microns based on this teaching in order to provide a minimal overall thickness while ensuring sufficient optical characteristics and productivity, falling within the claimed range of 170 microns to 200 microns.
Regarding claim 22: Modified Hayashi ‘559 teachesThe optical fiber of claim 21 (as applied above), wherein each core region comprises a germania-doped silica core (see col. 12, lines 17-42) and a fluorine-doped silica trench (see col. 13, lines 51-52) and wherein the fluorine-doped silica trench has a volume of 30%Δ-µm^2 to 90% Δ-µm^2 (Sample #121, see col. 16, lines 4-5 and Fig. 9a; this corresponds to b=8.56 microns, c=14.0 microns, and (Δ3)-( Δ4)=-0.5%, corresponding to a volume of 30.5%Δ-µm^2).
Regarding claim 23: Modified Hayashi ‘559 teachesThe optical fiber cable of claim 21 (as applied above), wherein a density of core regions in the cross-sectional area ranges from 40 core regions/mm^2 to 350 core regions/mm^2.
Hayashi ‘559 fails to disclose that the density of core regions in the cross-sectional area ranges from 40 core regions/mm^2 to 350 core regions/mm^2. However, Hayashi ‘559 discloses that the inner glass regions have a diameter less than 126 microns (see col. 22, lines 64-65). Additionally, in another embodiment (Fig. 38), Hayashi ‘559 teaches that a plurality of MCFs 10 are arranged linearly at a pitch of 250 microns (see col. 26, lines 65-66). Based on this, the MCFs of this embodiment necessarily have a total diameter (including the coating 5) less than 250 microns. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to prepare the MCFs with total diameters less than 250 microns, as this size is shown within the disclosure to be appropriate for the fibers and maintaining such a size allows for a high density cable. In the embodiment of Fig. 37, MCFs having a diameter less than 250 microns corresponds to a cable core with a maximum cross-sectional area of 0.29mm^2, containing 32 cores (four MCFs each having 8 cores), or a minimum core region density of 112 core regions/mm^2. At minimum, the MCFs are disclosed to have an inner glass region with a diameter of 124 microns. If the coating had an infinitesimal thickness, the total diameter of the MCF would be a value greater than 124 microns, this corresponds to a minimum cross-sectional area of the cable core being 0.072mm^2, containing 32 core, or a maximum core region density of 447 cores/mm^2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to prepare the optical fiber, as applied above, with any core region density between 112 and 447 cores/mm^2, including with a core region density of less than or equal to 350 cores/mm^2, based on the teachings of Hayashi ‘559.
Regarding claim 24: Modified Hayashi ‘559 teachesThe optical fiber cable of claim 21 (as applied above), wherein the common outer cladding defines a glass diameter of the first multicore optical fiber and wherein the glass diameter is from 120 microns to 130 microns (see col. 22, lines 64-65).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (US Patent No. 10,139,559; hereinafter Hayashi ‘559) in view of Hayashi (US 2021/0003773; hereinafter Hayashi ‘773) and further in view of Bickham et al. (WO 2020/069053; hereinafter Bickham).
Regarding claim 17: Modified Hayashi ‘559 teaches the optical fiber of claim 16, as applied above. Bickham, also related to optical fibers with coatings (see Bickham, title, abstract, paragraph 0012), teaches a two-layer coating that provides excellent microbending and macrobending performance while allowing for matching and low losses when integrated with external single-mode fibers (see paragraph 0042). In order to provide the modified Hayashi ‘559 multicore optical fibers with these advantages, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the Hayashi ‘559 fibers by using the two layer coating taught by Bickham. Bickham teaches that the ratio of a secondary coating layer thickness to a primary coating layer thickness is in a range of 0.67 to 2 (1/1.5 to 1/0.5, see Bickham paragraph 0053), and that the thicknesses of each coating and the ratio of the two coating thicknesses are result effective variables, affecting the microbending sensitivity, the overall thickness, and puncture resistance (see paragraph 0053). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the two-layer coating such that the ratio of the secondary coating layer thickness to the primary coating layer thickness is in a range of 0.65 to 1.0, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233).
Regarding claim 18: Modified Hayashi ‘559 teaches the optical fiber cable of claim 16, as applied above. Modified Hayashi ‘559 fails to teach that the primary coating layer has an elastic modulus of less than 1 MPa and T_g of less than -20 degrees C, and the secondary coating layer has an elastic modulus of greater than 1500 MPa and T_g of greater than 65 degrees C. Bickham, also related to optical fibers with coatings (see Bickham, title, abstract, paragraph 0012), teaches a two-layer coating having a primary coating layer has an elastic modulus of less than 1 MPa and T_g of less than -20 degrees C (see Bickham paragraph 0089), and the secondary coating layer has an elastic modulus of greater than 1500 MPa (see Bickham paragraph 0053) and T_g of between 55 degrees C and 65 degrees C (see Bickham paragraph 0135), overlapping the claimed range of greater than 65 degrees C. Bickham further teaches that the two-layer coating having these features provides excellent microbending and macrobending performance while allowing for matching and low losses when integrated with external single-mode fibers (see paragraph 0042). In order to provide the modified Hayashi ‘559 multicore optical fibers with these advantages, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the Hayashi ‘559 fibers by using the two layer coating taught by Bickham, having the properties of the primary coating layer having an elastic modulus of less than 1 MPa and T_g of less than -20 degrees C, and the secondary coating layer having an elastic modulus of greater than 1500 MPa and T_g of greater than 65 degrees C.
Regarding claim 19: Modified Hayashi ‘559 teaches the optical fiber cable of claim 16, as applied above. Modified Hayashi ‘559 fails to teach that a puncture resistance of the secondary coating layer is greater than 20 g. However, Bickham, also related to optical fibers with coatings (see Bickham, title, abstract, paragraph 0012), teaches a two-layer coating having a secondary coating layer with a puncture resistance greater than 20 g (see paragraph 0057). Bickham further teaches that the two-layer coating having these features provides excellent microbending and macrobending performance while allowing for matching and low losses when integrated with external single-mode fibers (see paragraph 0042). In order to provide the modified Hayashi ‘559 multicore optical fibers with these advantages, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the Hayashi ‘559 fibers by using the two layer coating taught by Bickham, having the properties of a puncture resistance of the secondary coating being greater than 20 g.
Claim(s) 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (US Patent No. 10,139,559; hereinafter Hayashi ‘559) in view of Sato et al. (US 2022/0365300; hereinafter Sato).
Regarding claim 6: Modified Hayashi ‘559 teaches the optical fiber cable of claim 5, as applied above. Modified Hayashi ‘559 fails to teach that the plurality of multicore optical fibers are arranged in the buffer tube in a loose tube configuration. However, Sato, also related to high density optical fiber cables (see Sato paragraph 0028), teaches multicore optical fibers (see Sato paragraph 0079) arranged in a buffer tube (Sato, Fig. 1, water absorbing tape 3) in a loose tube configuration (see Sato Fig. 2 and paragraph 0028). Loose-tube fibers are well-known to provide durability in harsh environments. In order to be more durable in harsh environments, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the Hayashi ‘559 device by arranging the multicore optical fibers in a buffer tube in a loose tube configuration, since it was taught by Sato.
Regarding claim 7: Modified Hayashi ‘559 teaches the optical fiber cable of claim 5, as applied above. Sato further teaches that the plurality of multicore optical fibers are arranged in the buffer tube in one or more ribbons (see Sato Fig. 2, fibers 11A-L). When modifying the Hayashi ‘559 device to have a loose-tube configuration, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to arrange the optical fibers in ribbons, as taught by Sato, for better fiber organization.
Regarding claim 8: Modified Hayashi ‘559 teachesThe optical fiber cable of claim 7 (as applied above), wherein each of the one or more ribbons are rollable or foldable ribbons (see Sato paragraph 0089).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten D Endresen whose telephone number is (703)756-1533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at (571)270-1739. 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.
/KIRSTEN D. ENDRESEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874