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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP 2023-051150, filed on March 29th, 2023.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 25th, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
"a moving mechanism configured to" in claim 1.
"a control unit configured to" in claim 1.
"a support unit configured to" in claim 4.
"a transport unit configured to" in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada et al., US 6201559 B1; Iwase, US 20120050449 A1; and Murakami, US 20140210905 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Wada et al. teaches:
A recording device (US 6201559 B1, Column 1, Lines 9 through 14, “The present invention relates to… an image forming apparatus which forms an image (electrostatic latent image) on a recording medium...").
A light reception element configured to receive the laser light from the laser element (US 6201559 B1, Columns 3 through 4, Lines 63 through 5, “"An image forming apparatus according to the present invention comprises:... a photosensor which receives the light emergent from the optical write head…").
A moving mechanism configured to change a relative position of the laser element and a recording target object and a relative position of the laser element and the light reception element (US 6201559 B1, Columns 3 through 4, Lines 63 through 5, "An image forming apparatus according to the present invention comprises:... transporting means which transports a recording medium in a subscanning direction on a focal position of light emergent from the optical write head; a photosensor which receives the light emergent from the optical write head; and moving means which moves the photosensor in the main scanning direction"; Column 12, Lines 1 through 7, "As shown in FIG. 11, the measuring unit 71 is located opposite the optical write head 20 and is capable of reciprocate in the main scanning direction X with forward/backward rotation of the driving guide shaft 76a. The measuring unit 71 is controlled by a control section 91 and a sequencer 92. The guide shaft 76a is driven by a reversible motor 93").
a first process of controlling the laser element and the moving mechanism to irradiate the light reception element with laser light in a state where the laser element and the light reception element face each other (US 6201559 B1, Column 12, Lines 26 through 31, “…but as mentioned, the measuring unit 71 retreats from the print sheet transport path at all times other than the time of the light-quantity measurement. During the light-quantity measurement, light emergent from the optical write head 20 is incident to the sensor 72…”; Figs. 2, 11, 12a, and 12b).
a second process of controlling the laser element and the moving mechanism to irradiate the recording target object with laser light based on a detection value of the light reception element in a state where the laser element and the recording target object face each other (US 6201559 B1, Column 19, Lines 1 through 3, "The print sheet 204 is exposed to lights emergent from the optical write heads 220, and thus, a latent image is formed thereon"; Column 2, Lines 26 through 31, "Furthermore, another object of the present invention is to provide an image forming apparatus which can measure the quantity of light outputted from each of a plurality of optical write heads employed therein with a simple mechanism and produce light-quantity correction data at real time so as to form quality images at all times").
Wada et al. does not disclose:
A laser element configured to emit laser light
However, Iwase discloses an optical device and an electrophotographic apparatus which uses a surface emitting laser as an exposure light source (US 20120050449 A1, Paragraph 0002, "The present invention relates to an optical device, to a surface-emitting laser having such an optical device and also to an electrophotographic apparatus having such a surface-emitting laser as an exposure light source").
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the patent application to modify Wada et al. to include a laser element, particularly a surface emitting laser, as a surface emitting laser improves the resolution of the exposure by having a generally smaller focused spot of the laser beam, as taught by Iwase (US 20120050449 A1, Paragraph 0007, "When surface-emitting semiconductor lasers are used as exposure light sources for electrophotographic apparatus or optical memory devices, the laser beam emitted from the lasers is focused onto the surface of a photosensitive member through a condensing lens. Therefore, generally smaller focused spot of the laser beam improves the resolution of exposure").
Wada et al. further does not disclose:
A control unit configured to control the laser element and moving mechanism
However, Murakami discloses a controller including a CPU, ROM, RAM, and I/O, connected to all components of the printer, particularly the print head, the pickup motor, and the conveyance motor (US 20140210905 A1, Fig. 8, Items 100, 101, 102, 103, and 106; Paragraph 0036, "The controller 100 manages the overall operation of the printer 1 by controlling the operation of each part of the printer 1”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the patent application to modify Wada et al. to include the control unit as described by Murakami so as to allow command input to be transmitted electronically from an external apparatus, such as a PC, as well as to allow the device to coordinate the recording process based on sensor readings, as taught by Murakami (US 20140210905 A1, Paragraph 0036, "The controller 100 controls a recording operation based on a recording command input from an external apparatus (e.g., a PC connected to the printer 1)... The timing to eject the ink from the ejection openings is determined based on a detection signal sent from a sheet sensor 7").
Regarding claim 3, Wada et al. teaches the moving mechanism moving the recording target object and the light reception element to change the relative position of the laser element and the recording target object and the relative position of the laser element and the light reception element (US 6201559 B1, Column 7, Lines 15 through 19, "The light-quantity measuring device 70 and the optical 15 write head 20 are controlled by a sequencer so that the reciprocal movement of the measuring unit 71 can be timed to measurement of the quantity of light outputted from each light shutter element"; Column 11, Lines 33 through 35, “The print sheet 4 is guided into the image forming station 2 through the transport rollers 5 with its photosensitive side facing down”).
Regarding claim 4, Wada et al. teaches:
A support unit configured to support the recording target object (US 6201559 B1, Figure 10, Item 7; Column 12, Lines 19 through 22, "The pairs of transport rollers 6 and 7 are controlled by a pulse motor to rotate at a constant velocity, and thereby, the sub scanning speed is kept constant", wherein the support unit analogous to the present application would be the second pair of transport rollers, 7).
A transport unit configured to transport the recording target object to the support unit (US 6201559 B1, Figure 10, Item 6; Column 12, Lines 19 through 22, "The pairs of transport rollers 6 and 7 are controlled by a pulse motor to rotate at a constant velocity, and thereby, the sub scanning speed is kept constant", wherein the transport unit analogous to the present application would be the first pair of transport rollers, 6).
Regarding claim 5, Wada et al. teaches moving the light reception element in a second direction intersecting the first direction (US 6201559 B1, Columns 3 through 4, Lines 63 through 5, "An image forming apparatus according to the present invention comprises: ...moving means which moves the photosensor in the main scanning direction", wherein the main scanning direction intersects the conveyance direction).
Wada et al. does not disclose the moving mechanism moving the support unit in a first direction.
However, Murakami teaches moving an upstream support member in an upstream direction and downstream support member in a downstream direction (US 20140210905 A1, Paragraph 0047, "Specifically, as shown in FIG. 7, when the platen 51 moves from the opposing position to the retracting position, the upstream support member 61 moves toward the upstream direction whereas the downstream support member 71 moves toward the downstream direction"). Murakami does this so that an opposing member may be moved into the area between the upstream support member and downstream support member (US 20140210905 A1, Paragraph 0049, "...the opposing ends of the upstream support member 61 and the downstream support member 71 are spaced apart from each other, which allows the opposing member 10 to be positioned between the upstream support member 61 and the downstream support member 71 (see FIGS. 7 and 9) …").
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify Wada et al. so as to include a means to move the support unit so as to make room for other printer components to move through the area, as taught above by Murakami.
Regarding claim 6, Wada et al. does not disclose controlling the moving mechanism to position the light reception element between the support unit and transport unit.
However, Murakami does teach positioning an "opposing member" (in this case a maintenance component for cleaning the print head) in between the support units in the path of conveyance (US 20140210905 A1, Paragraph 0049, "...the opposing ends of the upstream support member 61 and the downstream support member 71 are spaced apart from each other, which allows the opposing member 10 to be positioned between the upstream support member 61 and the downstream support member 71 (see FIGS. 7 and 9) ..."). Murakami does this so that the opposing member will directly face the print head (US 20140210905 A1, Paragraph 0049, "In this state, the ejection surface 2a does not oppose the platen 51 but directly opposes the opposing member 10 over the space").
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify Wada et al. so as to control the moving mechanism to position the light reception element between the support unit and transport unit so that the light reception element may be positioned to directly oppose the laser element, as taught above by Murakami.
Regarding claim 7, Wada et al. does not teach that the first direction is a horizontal direction and that the second direction is a vertical direction.
However, Murakami does teach that the first direction is a horizontal direction and the second direction is a vertical direction (US 20140210905 A1, Paragraph 0047, "Specifically, as shown in FIG. 7, when the platen 51 moves from the opposing position to the retracting position, the upstream support member 61 moves toward the upstream direction whereas the downstream support member 71 moves toward the downstream direction"; Paragraph 0033, “The opposing member elevation mechanism 11 is configured to vertically move the opposing member 10”). Murakami does this so that the opposing member will be allowed to directly face the print head (US 20140210905 A1, Paragraph 0049 "...the opposing ends of the upstream support member 61 and the downstream support member 71 are spaced apart from each other, which allows the opposing member 10 to be positioned between the upstream support member 61 and the downstream support member 71 (see FIGS. 7 and 9) ... In this state, the ejection surface 2a does not oppose the platen 51 but directly opposes the opposing member 10 over the space. The opposing member 10 is vertically movable").
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify Wada et al. to move the support unit in a horizontal direction and the light reception element in a vertical direction so as to allow the support unit to move from the path of the light reception element, allowing the light reception element to oppose the laser element, as taught above by Murakami.
Regarding claim 8, Wada et al. does not disclose that the laser element is a surface emitting laser.
However, Iwase does teach the use of a surface emitting laser (US 20120050449 A1, Paragraph 0002, "The present invention relates to an optical device, to a surface-emitting laser having such an optical device and also to an electrophotographic apparatus having such a surface-emitting laser as an exposure light source"). Iwase does this as a surface emitting laser has a lower divergence angle and is able to more easily achieve single mode operations and form two-dimensional laser arrays (US 20120050449 A1, Paragraph 0005, "A surface-emitting laser can achieve single mode operations with ease and the divergence-angle of the laser beam emitted from such a laser is narrow compared with an edge-emitting laser. Also, a two-dimensional laser array can be formed with ease by using surface-emitting lasers").
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify Wada et al. to use a surface emitting laser, as taught above by Iwase.
Regarding claim 9, Wada et al. does not teach that the laser element is a photonic crystal surface emitting laser.
However, Iwase does teach the use of a photonic crystal emitting laser (US 20120050449 A1, Paragraph 0134, "The surface-emitting laser of this example is configured as a photonic crystal surface-emitting laser device..."). Iwase does this as photonic crystal surface emitting laser can reduce the diameter of the focused spot (US 20120050449 A1, Paragraph 0008, "Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 2007- 258260 describes a photonic crystal surface-emitting laser that can emit a laser beam having an annular cross section and polarization in a radial direction so as to reduce the diameter of the focused spot").
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify Wada et al. to use a photonic crystal surface emitting laser aa taught above by Iwase.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada et al., US 6201559 B1; Iwase, US 20120050449 A1; and Murakami, US 20140210905 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cook et al., US 6154238 A.
Regarding claim 2, modified Wada et al. does not disclose moving the laser element to change the relative position of the laser element and the recording target object and the relative position of the laser element and the light reception element.
However, Cook et al. teaches a scanning print head which physically moves along a guide rail in the scanning direction over the medium (US 6154238 A, Fig. 14; Column 14, Lines 45 through 49, “Alternatively, as illustrated in FIG. 14, one or more chips may be coupled to a scanning device, such as a swathing print carriage similar to those known in the art, to form a print head 36S that scans across the print medium 152 to create the desired image”). Cook et al. does this as a scanning print head is more cost effective. A scanning print head uses fewer voltage drivers, making it cheaper to produce. Furthermore, the print head may be made disposable as the driver circuitry could be contained elsewhere on the printer (US 6154238 A, Column 14, Lines 53 through 64, "...the scanning print head 36S has many fewer channels and, thus, uses many fewer high voltage drivers, the scanning print head 36S is much less expensive than a comparable page wide print head 36P. Second, instead of "splicing" several chips, which are 1 to 5 centimeters in width, together to form a page wide print head 36P, a single chip may be used to form the scanning print head 36S. Third, because the relatively expensive driver circuitry may be contained elsewhere in the printer, the scanning print head 36S may be disposable, although it may be configured to be refillable in order to minimize the printing cost per page").
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify Wada et al. to include a scanning laser print head, which relatively changes the position of the laser element and the light reception element, as taught above by Cook.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 18/239,385 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because though the claim of the reference application includes a stage which is not present in the claim of the current application, a stage is described in the specification of the current application for the purpose of placing and moving a recording target object made of a potentially rigid material such as metal or resin (Paragraphs 0081 and 0082, “The recording target object 2 is provided on the stage 60. For example, the material of the recording target object 2 is metal or a resin… As illustrated in FIG. 17 and FIG. 18, in the recording device 300, the moving mechanism 30 may move the stage 60...”).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Current Application 18/616,088
Co-pending Application 18/239,385
1. A recording device comprising:
a laser element configured to emit laser light;
a light reception element configured to receive the laser light from the laser element;
a moving mechanism configured to change a relative position of the laser element and a recording target object and a relative position of the laser element and the light reception element; and
a control unit configured to control the laser element and the moving mechanism, wherein
the control unit is configured to perform:
a first process of controlling the laser element and the moving mechanism to irradiate the light reception element with laser light in a state where the laser element and the light reception element face each other; and
a second process of controlling the laser element and the moving mechanism to irradiate the recording target object with laser light based on a detection value of the light reception element in a state where the laser element and the recording target object face each other.
1. A laser processing apparatus comprising:
a stage on which a workpiece is placed;
a laser element configured to emit laser light;
a light receiving element configured to receive the laser light from the laser element;
a moving mechanism configured to change a relative position of the laser element and the stage and a relative position of the laser element and the light receiving element; and
a control unit configured to control the laser element and the moving mechanism, wherein
the control unit performs
a first process of controlling the laser element and the moving mechanism to irradiate the light receiving element with laser light in a state where the laser element and the light receiving element face each other, and
a second process of controlling the laser element and the moving mechanism to irradiate the workpiece with laser light based on a detection value of the light receiving element in a state where the laser element and the workpiece face each other.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI ALSHOROOGI whose telephone number is (571)272-8946. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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, Douglas Rodriguez can be reached at (571)431-0716. 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.
/RAMI A ALSHOROOGI//R.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/DOUGLAS X RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853