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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/5/2024 and 1/28/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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, claim 2 “a runner” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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, claim 7 “cooling node vertically inserted node” 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/18/2026. The office notes that the arguments are persuasive and the restriction requirement is revoked.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 4-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (U.S 7,724,524) in view of Sweeney (U.S 2022/0361381 A1).
In regards to Claim 1, Campbell discloses a liquid cooling node (Fig.4, #400); comprising: a sealed compartment (Fig.4, #400 is a sealed compartment, see abstract), wherein the sealed compartment is filled with a first medium (Fig.4 and abstract); at least one cooling component (Fig.4, #495/420 cold plate), disposed in the sealed compartment (Fig.4), wherein the cooling component is filled with a second medium (Fig.4 and abstract, disclosing a second fluid within the cooling component); and two second connectors (Fig.4, #439), disposed on the side wall of the sealed compartment (Fig.4), and configured to communicate with the at least one cooling component to form a second cooling path (Fig.4, #439 communications with #495 to dissipate heat generated by a primary heat generating component).
Campbell fails to disclose: Two first connectors, disposed on a side wall of the sealed compartment, and configured to be communicate with the sealed compartment to form a first cooling path.
However, Sweeny discloses: Two first connectors (Fig.1, #38/44), disposed on a side wall of the sealed compartment (Fig.1), and configured to be communicate with the sealed compartment to form a first cooling path (Fig.1 and paragraph [0007 & 0032], which discloses the connectors supply coolant to immerse the heat generating components, as such the office notes that with the combination of Campbell in view of Sweeny, the sealed compartment comprising two liquid cooling loops within said compartment (as taught by Campbell) would be modified to include two additional connectors (as taught by Sweeny) to circulate the immersion fluid in and out of said compartment).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the sealed compartment comprising two liquid cooling loops within said compartment (as taught by Campbell) to include two additional connectors (as taught by Sweeny) to circulate the immersion fluid in and out of said compartment. By including additional connectors to the sealed compartment, would replenish warm/old dielectric fluid with new cool dielectric fluid to ensure the one or more secondary heat generating components are properly cooled.
In regards to Claim 4, Campbell in view of Sweeny disclose the liquid cooling node of claim 1, wherein the first medium and the second medium are a same type of cooling liquid (Campbell, Column 5, lines 34-35, which discloses the first and second medium are the same).
In regards to Claim 5, Campbell in view of Sweeny disclose the liquid cooling node of claim 1, wherein the first medium and the second medium are different types of cooling liquid (Campbell, Column 5, lines 34-35, which discloses the first and second medium can be different).
In regards to Claim 6, Campbell in view of Sweeny disclose the liquid cooling node of claim 1, wherein the first medium is a non-aqueous single-phase working medium ((Campbell, Column 5, lines 34-35, which discloses the first medium is non-aqueous (refrigerants).
In regards to Claim 7, Campbell in view of Sweeny disclose the liquid cooling node of claim 1, wherein the liquid cooling node is a vertically inserted node (Campbell, Fig.2a, discloses #400 being a vertically inserted node, furthermore, Sweeny, discloses plurality of cooling nodes vertically inserted within enclosure #10), the first medium is a non-aqueous two-phase working medium (Campbell, Column 5, lines 34-35), and the two first connectors are arranged in a vertical direction (Campbell, Fig.4, #439 are arranged in a vertical direction (y-direction)).
In regards to Claim 8, Campbell in view of Sweeny disclose the liquid cooling node of claim 1, wherein the second medium is an aqueous working medium (Campbell, Column 5, lines 34-35, which discloses the second medium as aqueous).
In regards to Claim 9, Campbell in view of Sweeny disclose the liquid cooling node of claim 1, wherein the at least one cooling component comprises a plurality of cooling components, and the plurality of cooling components are configured to communicate with each other (Campbell, Fig.4, there are plurality of #495/420 and are all in communication with each other (see return line)).
In regards to Claim 12, Campbell in view of Sweeny disclose the liquid cooling node according to claim 1, wherein a circuit board (Campbell, Fig.4, #405) is disposed in the sealed compartment (Campbell, Fig.4), and a first chip (Campbell, Fig.4) and a second chip (Campbell, Fig.4, which discloses a second memory chip) are disposed on the circuit board (Campbell, Fig.4); and the main first chip is in contact with the cooling component Campbell, Fig.4, #495/420 is in contact with the first chip), and at least a part of the second chip is immersed in the first medium (Campbell, Fig.4, secondary components i.e., memory chip is submerged in a first coolant).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (U.S 7,724,524) in view of Sweeney (U.S 2022/0361381 A1) and further, in view of Peterson (U.S 2022/0408612 A1).
In regards to Claim 2, Campbell in view of Sweeny disclose the liquid cooling node of claim 1, wherein a heat generation component is disposed in the sealed compartment (Campbell, Fig.4, primary heat generating components within #400).
Campbell in view of Sweeny fail to disclose: The cooling component forms a closed structure, the cooling component is attached to a surface of the heat generation component, and a runner is disposed inside the cooling component.
However, Peterson discloses: The cooling component forms a closed structure (Fig.4-5, #556 in conjunction with #557 form a closed structure), the cooling component is attached to a surface of the heat generation component (Fig.5, #556 and #557 attached to a surface #528 of heat generating component #514), and a runner is disposed inside the cooling component (Paragraph [0056], which discloses a runner (vapor direction feature) is disposed on the inner surface of the cooling component, as such the office notes that with the combination of Campbell in view of Sweeny and Peterson, the cooling component which is used to cool a primary component (as taught by Campbell) would be modified to comprise a shell (as taught by Peterson) to enclose a heat generating component).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the cooling component which is used to cool a primary component (as taught by Campbell) to comprise a shell (as taught by Peterson) to enclose a heat generating component. By utilizing a shell as a cooling component, would ensure the cooling fluid would encompass the entirety of said component, therefore ensuring adequate cooling (Peterson, paragraph [0056]).
In regards to Claim 3, Campbell in view of Sweeny disclose the liquid cooling node of claim 1, wherein a heat generation component is disposed in the sealed compartment (Campbell, Fig.4, primary heat generating components within #400).
Campbell in view of Sweeny fail to disclose: The cooling component is disposed as a cavity structure with an opening on one side, an opening side of the cooling component is connected to the heat generation component, and the heat generation component closes the opening side of the cooling component to form a closed structure.
However, Peterson discloses: The cooling component is disposed as a cavity structure with an opening on one side (Fig.4-5, #556 in conjunction with #557 form a cavity structure having an opening on one side), an opening side of the cooling component is connected to the heat generation component (Fig.5, #556 and #557 attached to a surface #528 of heat generating component #514), and the heat generation component closes the opening side of the cooling component to form a closed structure (Fig.4-5 and paragraphs [0056-0057], which discloses the shell closes the opening side against #528 which contains the component #514, as such the office notes that with the combination of Campbell in view of Sweeny and Peterson, the cooling component which is used to cool a primary component (as taught by Campbell) would be modified to comprise a shell (as taught by Peterson) to enclose a heat generating component).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the cooling component which is used to cool a primary component (as taught by Campbell) to comprise a shell (as taught by Peterson) to enclose a heat generating component. By utilizing a shell as a cooling component, would ensure the cooling fluid would encompass the entirety of said component, therefore ensuring adequate cooling (Peterson, paragraph [0056]).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (U.S 7,724,524) in view of Sweeney (U.S 2022/0361381 A1) and further, in view of Edmunds (U.S 2022/0110225 A1).
In regards to Claim 10, Campbell in view of Sweeny disclose the liquid cooling node of claim 1.
Campbell in view of Sweeny fail to disclose: Wherein the first connectors are quick blind-mate connectors.
However, Edmunds discloses: Wherein the first connectors are quick blind-mate connectors (Paragraph [0085 & 0277], which discloses the connectors used can be blind mate connectors, as such the office notes that with the combination of Campbell in view of Sweeny and Edmunds, the connectors used to transport fluid within the sealed compartment (as taught by Sweeny) would be modified to be blind mate connectors (as taught by Edmunds) to easily connect each sealed compartment to a manifold).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the connectors used to transport fluid within the sealed compartment (as taught by Sweeny) to be replaced with blind mate connectors (as taught by Edmunds) to easily connect each sealed compartment to a manifold. By utilizing blind mate connectors, would enable easier to fit without using tools such as wrenches and reduce/prevent misalignment when mating (Edmunds, Paragraph [0277]).
In regards to Claim 11, Campbell in view of Sweeny disclose t the liquid cooling node of claim 1,
Campbell in view of Sweeny fail to disclose: Wherein the second connectors are quick blind-mate connectors.
However, Edmunds discloses: Wherein the second connectors are quick blind-mate connectors (Paragraph [0085 & 0277], which discloses the connectors used can be blind mate connectors, as such the office notes that with the combination of Campbell in view of Sweeny and Edmunds, the connectors used to transport fluid within the sealed compartment (as taught by Sweeny) would be modified to be blind mate connectors (as taught by Edmunds) to easily connect each sealed compartment to a manifold).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the connectors used to transport fluid within the sealed compartment (as taught by Sweeny) to be replaced with blind mate connectors (as taught by Edmunds) to easily connect each sealed compartment to a manifold. By utilizing blind mate connectors, would enable easier to fit without using tools such as wrenches and reduce/prevent misalignment when mating (Edmunds, Paragraph [0277]).
Claims 13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (U.S 7,724,524) in view of Sweeney (U.S 2022/0361381 A1), and further, in view of Wakino (U.S 2018/0027695 A1).
In regards to Claim 13, Campbell discloses a liquid cooling heat dissipation cabinet- comprising: a cabinet body (Fig.1,, #100); a plurality of liquid cooling nodes (Fig.1, #110), and the liquid cooling nodes are detachably installed on the cabinet body (Fig.1-2, #110 are detachably installed within #100), wherein each of the liquid cooling nodes comprises two second connectors (Fig.4, #439);; wherein; each of the liquid cooling nodes further comprises: a sealed compartment (Fig.4, #400 is a sealed compartment, see abstract), wherein the sealed compartment is filled with a first medium (Fig.4 and abstract); at least one cooling component (Fig.4, #495/420 cold plate), disposed in the sealed compartment (Fig.4), wherein the cooling component is filled with a second medium (Fig.4 and abstract, disclosing a second fluid within the cooling component); a first cooling path (Fig.4, the immersion fluid circulating within sealed compartment) and two second connectors (Fig.4, #439), disposed on the side wall of the sealed compartment (Fig.4), and configured to communicate with the at least one cooling component to form a second cooling path (Fig.4, #439 communications with #495 to dissipate heat generated by a primary heat generating component).
Campbell fails to disclose: Two first connectors and a first flow distributor, configured to distribute a first medium, wherein one of the two first connectors of at least one of the liquid cooling nodes is configured to communicate with a liquid inlet side of the first flow distributor, and the other one of the two first connectors is configured to communicate with a liquid outlet side of the first flow distributor; and a second flow distributor, configured to distribute a second medium, wherein one of the two second connectors of the at least one of the liquid cooling nodes is configured to communicate with a liquid inlet side of the second flow distributor, and the other one of the two second connectors is configured to communicate with a liquid outlet side of the second flow distributor and the two first connectors; are disposed on a side wall of the sealed compartment, and are configured to communicate with the sealed compartment to form.
However, Sweeny discloses: Two first connectors (Fig.1, #38/44) and two first connectors (Fig.1, #38/44), disposed on a side wall of the sealed compartment (Fig.1), and configured to be communicate with the sealed compartment to form a first cooling path (Fig.1 and paragraph [0007 & 0032], which discloses the connectors supply coolant to immerse the heat generating components, as such the office notes that with the combination of Campbell in view of Sweeny, the sealed compartment comprising two liquid cooling loops within said compartment (as taught by Campbell) would be modified to include two additional connectors (as taught by Sweeny) to circulate the immersion fluid in and out of said compartment).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the sealed compartment comprising two liquid cooling loops within said compartment (as taught by Campbell) to include two additional connectors (as taught by Sweeny) to circulate the immersion fluid in and out of said compartment. By including additional connectors to the sealed compartment, would replenish warm/old dielectric fluid with new cool dielectric fluid to ensure the one or more secondary heat generating components are properly cooled.
Furthermore, Campbell in view of Sweeny fail to disclose: A first flow distributor, configured to distribute a first medium, wherein one of the two first connectors of at least one of the liquid cooling nodes is configured to communicate with a liquid inlet side of the first flow distributor, and the other one of the two first connectors is configured to communicate with a liquid outlet side of the first flow distributor; and a second flow distributor, configured to distribute a second medium, wherein one of the two second connectors of the at least one of the liquid cooling nodes is configured to communicate with a liquid inlet side of the second flow distributor, and the other one of the two second connectors is configured to communicate with a liquid outlet side of the second flow distributor.
However, Wakino discloses: A first flow distributor (Fig.3, #74), configured to distribute a first medium (Fig.3, #24), wherein one of the two first connectors (Fig.3, #72b/72a) of at least one of the liquid cooling nodes is configured to communicate with a liquid inlet side of the first flow distributor (Fig.3, connectors #72b communicate with inlet of #74), and the other one of the two first connectors is configured to communicate with a liquid outlet side of the first flow distributor (Fig.3, #72a communicates with the outlet of #74); and a second flow distributor (Fig.3, #58), configured to distribute a second medium (Fig.3, #50 distribute a second medium to the cooling component), wherein one of the two second connectors of the at least one of the liquid cooling nodes is configured to communicate with a liquid inlet side of the second flow distributor (Fig.3, #54b1 communicates with the inlet of #58), and the other one of the two second connectors is configured to communicate with a liquid outlet side of the second flow distributor (Fig.3, #54a communicates with the outlet side of #58, as such the office notes that with the combination of Campbell in view of Sweeny and Wakino, the first and second connectors of the sealed compartment (as taught by Campbell in view of Sweeny) would be modified to include a first and second flow distributor (as taught by Wakino) to help distribute the cooling mediums within the sealed compartment).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the first and second connectors of the sealed compartment (as taught by Campbell in view of Sweeny) to additionally include a first and second flow distributor (as taught by Wakino) to help distribute the cooling mediums within the sealed compartment. By including flow distributors in line with the connectors, would ensure the primary and secondary components are cooled efficiently and be able to control flow rate based on heat dissipation requirements.
In regards to Claim 16, Campbell in view of Sweeny and Wakino disclose the liquid cooling heat dissipation cabinet according to claim 13, wherein the first medium and the second medium are a same type of cooling liquid (Campbell, Column 5, lines 34-35, which discloses the first and second medium are the same).
In regards to Claim 17, Campbell in view of Sweeny and Wakino disclose the liquid cooling heat dissipation cabinet according to claim 13, wherein the first flow distributor and the second flow distributor are disposed on a same side of the cabinet body (Wakino, Fig.3, both flow distributors #74 and #58 are disposed on same side of body).
In regards to Claim 18, Campbell in view of Sweeny and Wakino disclose the liquid cooling heat dissipation cabinet according to claim 13, wherein the first flow distributor and the second flow distributor are disposed on same sides of the cabinet body (Wakino, Fig.3, both flow distributors #74 and #58 are disposed on same side of body).
However, Campbell in view of Sweeny and Wakino fail to explicitly disclose: wherein the first flow distributor and the second flow distributor are disposed on different sides of the cabinet body.
However, MPEP 2144.04 (IV) C notes that a mere rearrangement of parts from the prior art teachings is considered obvious as being well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art, where there is no criticality established for the placement of the particular parts. Thus, wherein the first flow distributor and the second flow distributor are disposed on different sides of the cabinet body is obvious as being well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art, as such modification would yield predictable results i.e., provide the first and second medium with kinetic energy to cooling the one or more components within the sealed compartment (See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) C Rearrangement of Parts, citing, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (U.S 7,724,524) in view of Sweeney (U.S 2022/0361381 A1), Wakino (U.S 2018/0027695 A1), and further, in view of Peterson (U.S 2022/0408612 A1).
In regards to Claim 14, Campbell in view of Sweeny and Wakino disclose the liquid cooling heat dissipation cabinet according to claim 13, wherein a heat generation component is disposed in the sealed compartment.
Campbell in view of Sweeny and Wakino fail to disclose: The cooling component forms a closed structure, the cooling component is attached to a surface of the heat generation component, and a runner is disposed inside the cooling component.
However, Peterson discloses: The cooling component forms a closed structure (Fig.4-5, #556 in conjunction with #557 form a closed structure), the cooling component is attached to a surface of the heat generation component (Fig.5, #556 and #557 attached to a surface #528 of heat generating component #514), and a runner is disposed inside the cooling component (Paragraph [0056], which discloses a runner (vapor direction feature) is disposed on the inner surface of the cooling component, as such the office notes that with the combination of Campbell in view of Sweeny, Wakino, and Peterson, the cooling component which is used to cool a primary component (as taught by Campbell) would be modified to comprise a shell (as taught by Peterson) to enclose a heat generating component).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the cooling component which is used to cool a primary component (as taught by Campbell) to comprise a shell (as taught by Peterson) to enclose a heat generating component. By utilizing a shell as a cooling component, would ensure the cooling fluid would encompass the entirety of said component, therefore ensuring adequate cooling (Peterson, paragraph [0056]).
In regards to Claim 15, Campbell in view of Sweeny and Wakino disclose the liquid cooling heat dissipation cabinet according to claim 13, wherein a heat generation component is disposed in the sealed compartment (Campbell, Fig.4, primary heat generating components within #400).
Campbell in view of Sweeny and Wakino fail to disclose: The cooling component is disposed as a cavity structure with an opening on one side, an opening side of the cooling component is connected to the heat generation component, and the heat generation component closes the opening side of the cooling component to form a closed structure.
However, Peterson discloses: The cooling component is disposed as a cavity structure with an opening on one side (Fig.4-5, #556 in conjunction with #557 form a cavity structure having an opening on one side), an opening side of the cooling component is connected to the heat generation component (Fig.5, #556 and #557 attached to a surface #528 of heat generating component #514), and the heat generation component closes the opening side of the cooling component to form a closed structure (Fig.4-5 and paragraphs [0056-0057], which discloses the shell closes the opening side against #528 which contains the component #514, as such the office notes that with the combination of Campbell in view of Sweeny, Wakino, and Peterson, the cooling component which is used to cool a primary component (as taught by Campbell) would be modified to comprise a shell (as taught by Peterson) to enclose a heat generating component).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the cooling component which is used to cool a primary component (as taught by Campbell) to comprise a shell (as taught by Peterson) to enclose a heat generating component. By utilizing a shell as a cooling component, would ensure the cooling fluid would encompass the entirety of said component, therefore ensuring adequate cooling (Peterson, paragraph [0056]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to Claim 19, no prior art fairly suggests or discloses “the heat exchange module comprises two heat exchange branches that are configured to not communicate with each other, the first flow distributor is configured to communicate with one of the heat exchange branches, and the second flow distributor is configured to communicate with the other one of the heat exchange branches”, in conjunction with the remaining elements.
In regards to Claim 20, no prior art fairly suggests or discloses “two heat exchange modules, the first flow distributor is configured to communicate with one of the heat exchange modules, and the second flow distributor is configured to communicate with the other one of the heat exchange modules
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Malouin (U.S 2023/0156959 A1) – Discloses a liquid cooling system comprising a sealed enclosure comprising a first liquid cooling path and a second cooling path, wherein each path has a pair of connectors disposed on the outside of said enclosure to provide liquid coolant to each path.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDEEP S BUTTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4768. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-4:00PM.
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 5712723740. 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.
/MANDEEP S BUTTAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835