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 .
Double Patenting
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-10, 17, and 19-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 4, 7-10, and 12-14 of copending Application No. 18/653,226 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader than those of the reference application and, thus, the claims of the reference application recite each and every limitation of the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 1, ‘226 discloses:
An electrical connector assembly (claim 1, preamble, verbatim) comprising:
a connector housing having housing walls forming a chamber (claim 1, verbatim); and
contact wafers (claim 1, “wafer assemblies”) arranged in a contact wafer stack (claim 1, “a wafer stack”), the contact wafers received in the chamber and coupled to the connector housing (claim 1, “the wafer assemblies received in the chamber and coupled to the connector housing”), each contact wafer including a wafer frame, a contact assembly coupled to the wafer frame, and a signal conditioning module coupled to the wafer frame (claim 1, “each wafer assembly including a wafer frame, a contact assembly coupled to the wafer frame, a signal conditioning module coupled to the wafer frame”);
the signal conditioning module including a circuit board and a repeater device mounted to the circuit board (claim 1, verbatim);
the contact assembly (claim 1, “the contact assembly”) including signal contacts (claim 1, “a plurality of contacts”) forming data channels (claim 1, “wherein the cables and the corresponding signal contacts form data channels”), the signal contacts having mating ends and terminating ends, the mating ends configured to be mated to mating contacts of a mating connector assembly, the terminating ends being electrically connected to the circuit board of the signal conditioning module (claim 1, “the contacts having mating ends and terminating ends, the mating ends extending along the contact support platforms, the mating ends configured to be mated to mating contacts of a mating connector assembly, the terminating ends being electrically connected to the circuit board of the signal conditioning module”), the data channels being electrically connected to the repeater device through the circuit board (inherent; claim 1 recites “the repeater device is configured to restore signals transmitted along the data channels” and, thus, there is inherently a connection between the data channels and the repeater device; since the repeater device is mounted on a printed circuit board, one of ordinary skill would reasonably interpret ‘226 as inherently including electrical traces on the circuit board connecting the repeater device to other connected devices);
wherein the repeater device is configured to restore signals transmitted along the data channels (claim 1, “the repeater device is configured to restore signals transmitted along the data channels”).
Regarding claim 2, ’226 discloses the limitation of claim 1 as set forth above and further discloses the repeater device being a re-timer device (claim 7).
Regarding claim 3, ‘226 discloses the limitation of claim 1 as set forth above and further discloses the circuit boards of the signal conditioning modules of the contact wafers are arranged parallel to each other in the contact wafer stack (claim 12).
Regarding claim 4, ‘226 discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the signal contacts are arranged in pairs, the signal contacts of each pair terminated to opposite sides of the circuit board (claim 13).
Regarding claim 5, ‘226 discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the wafer frame including a pocket, the signal conditioning module being received in the pocket (claims 8, 9; as recited by reference claim 9, “the wafer body surrounds at least a portion of the circuit board; since the circuit board is an element of the signal conditioning module, and the wafer frame, specifically a wafer body, is surrounding at least a portion of the circuit board, claim 9 inherently recites a wafer frame including an inherent pocket, the signal conditioning module being received in said pocket).
Regarding claim 6, ‘226 discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the contact wafer including shield elements extending along the signal contacts providing electrical shielding for the signal contacts (claim 14).
Regarding claim 8, ‘226 discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses each contact wafer including a cable assembly terminated to the signal conditioning module (claim 1, “a cable assembly terminated to the signal conditioning module”), the cable assembly including cables terminated to the circuit board (claim 1, “the cable assembly including cables terminated to the circuit board”), the cables being electrically connected to the repeater devices (claim 1, “the cables being electrically connected to the repeater device”), wherein the signal contacts are electrically connected to the repeater devices (claim 1, “the contacts being electrically connected to the repeater device”) and, thus, the cables of the cable assembly are electrically connected to the corresponding signal contacts via the repeater device (inherent; as both the contacts and the cable are connected to the repeater, they are connected to each other via the repeater).
Regarding claim 9, ‘226 discloses the limitations of claim 8 and further discloses the wafer frame including cable channels receiving the cables (claim 10, “the wafer body surrounds ends of the cables;” as the wafer body is an element of the wafer frame, the wafer frame surrounds ends of the cables and therefore must inherently have a “channel” for receiving the cables).
Regarding claim 10, ‘226 discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 8 and further discloses the contact wafer extends between a front and a rear, the signal contacts provided at the front, the cables extending from the rear (inherent to claim 10; reference claim 8 recites the wafer body surrounding a portion of the contacts; reference claim 10 depends from reference claim 8 and further recites the wafer body surrounding ends of the cables; as claim 10 recites only ends of the cables, one of ordinary skill would interpret the reference as having cables extending away from the wafer body and, thus, the reference inherently defines “an end” which may be arbitrarily designated as “a rear” end; as the contacts and cables cannot occupy the same physical space, they must be separated by some physical distance, thereby inhering the presence of another end of the wafer body which may be arbitrarily designated as “a front” end; thus reference claim 10 inherently discloses the subject matter of instant claim 10).
Regarding claim 17, ‘226 discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses a distribution assembly (claim 4, “a busbar”) coupled to the signal conditioning modules [sic] of each of the contact wafers (“a busbar configured to supply power to the signal conditioning module”), the distribution assembly distributing power to the repeater devices of the signal conditioning modules (inherent; as claimed, the busbar delivers power to the signal conditioning module; as the repeater is an element of the signal conditioning module, one of ordinary skill would reasonably interpret that the power delivered to the signal conditioning module is provided, at least in part, to the repeater of the signal conditioning module).
Regarding claim 19, Applicant merely recites a combination of the subject matter recited by instant claims 1 and 8. As shown above, the ‘226 reference discloses the subject matter of both instant claims 1 and 8; as such, Examiner finds that the NDSP rejection of claims 1 and 8 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of instant claim 19.
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Applicant merely recites the same subject matter as recited by instant claims 9 and 10. As shown above, the ‘226 reference discloses the subject matter of both instant claims 9 and 10; as such, Examiner finds that the NDSP rejection of claims 9 and 10 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of instant claims 20 and 21.
Claim(s) 7 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 11 of copending Application No. 18/653,226 in view of common knowledge in the art.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 7, ‘226 discloses the limitations of claim 1 as set forth above and further discloses the wafer frame including a body (claim 11, “the wafer body”) holding the signal contacts relative to each other (“the wafer body is overmolded over the portions of the contacts”) and relative to the circuit board (inherent to claim 1; as the signal conditioning module is “coupled to the wafer frame,” it may be reasonably interpreted as being held in a static position relative to the wafer frame; since the circuit board is static relative to the wafer frame, and the wafer frame is overmolded on the contacts, the contacts are held relative to each other and the circuit board of the signal conditioning module).
‘226 does not disclose the wafer body comprising a dielectric material. Those of ordinary skill in the art, however, would appreciate that a wafer body which is overmolded onto a plurality of signal contacts must not be made of a conductive material, otherwise all of the signal contacts would be shorted relative to each other. Thus, one of ordinary skill would reasonably interpreted ‘226 as disclosing the wafer body being made of an insulative material. It is well-known in the art to utilize dielectric materials as an electrically conductive material.
As such, Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to modify the subject matter of the reference application such that the wafer body comprises a dielectric material for the purposes of insulating signal contacts from one another when the wafer body is overmolded onto the signal contacts.
Claim Interpretation
For clarity of the record, Examiner notes that various elements of the instant claims are not clearly and positively recited. For example, claim 1 recites “contact wafers” rather than the clear and positive recitation of “a plurality of contact wafers.” For purposes of examination, the first instance of such limitations will be interpreted as establishing a new element and subsequent instances will be treated as indefinite, where appropriate.
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 3, 6, 10, 17, and 18 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 3, Applicant recites “the circuit boards of the signal conditioning modules of the contact wafers” in lines 1 to 2 of the claim as filed. These limitations are indefinite because they do not clearly refer back to the established limitations of claim 1.
As filed, the cited portion of claim 3 may be subject to multiple, plausible claim constructions. For example, the limitations may be interpreted as reciting the contact wafers of claim 1 each including multiple signal conditioning modules, said multiple signal conditioning modules each including multiple circuit boards. This limitation, despite being a reasonable construction of the claimed subject matter, would nonetheless be inconsistent with the recitation of claim 1. As recited by claim 1, each contact wafer is provided with a signal conditioning module, each signal conditioning module being provided with a circuit board. Stated another way, the recitation of claim 1 does not clearly and positively recite, nor does it reasonably convey, an embodiment wherein each contact wafer is provided with a plurality of signal conditioning modules and a plurality of circuit boards.
The limitation may also be interpreted as if it instead recited “the circuit board of each signal conditioning module of each of the contact wafers,” which is consistent with the limitations recited by claim 1. Such an interpretation is, however, still unnecessarily verbose; as best understood by Examiner, the entire claim may be simplified as if it recited “wherein the plurality of contact wafers are arranged parallel to each other.” A review of the disclosure as filed suggests that Applicant neither contemplates nor discloses any embodiment where the contact wafers are parallel to each other while the circuit boards disposed in each contact wafer are not parallel with respect to the other circuit boards.
Appropriate correction and clarification is required. For purposes of examination claim 3 will be examined as if it recited “wherein the plurality of contact wafers are arranged parallel to each other.”
Regarding claim 6, Applicant recites “the contact wafer” in lines 1-2 of the claim as filed. There is no clear antecedent basis for this limitation because claim 1 recites “contact wafers.” As Applicant neither specifies which of the plural wafers is being reference nor appropriately recites “each of the contact wafers” (emphasis added), the limitation and the claim are rendered indefinite. Appropriate correction is required. For purposes of examination the claim will be interpreted as if it recited “wherein each of the contact wafers….”
Regarding claim 10, Applicant again recites “the contact wafer” in lines 1-2 of the claim as filed. This limitation is indefinite for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 6, above. As such, the rejection of claim 6 under §112 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the corresponding limitations of claim 10. Appropriate correction is required. For purposes of examination the claim will be interpreted as if it recited “wherein each of the contact wafers….”
Regarding claim 17, Applicant recites “the signal conditioning modules of each of the contact wafers” in lines 2-3 of the claim as filed. This limitation is indefinite because it conflicts with the subject matter recited in claim 1.
In claim 1, Applicant recites a signal conditioning module for each of the contact wafers, not a plurality of signal conditioning modules for each of the contact wafers. Thus, to appropriate refer back to the subject matter of claim 1, claim 17 should instead recite “the signal conditioning module of each of the contact wafers” or “the signal conditioning modules of the contact wafers….”
Appropriate correction is required. For purposes of examination, claim 17 will be read as if it recited “the signal conditioning module of each of the contact wafers….” Claim 18 depends from claim 17, fails to cure its deficiencies, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reason.
Regarding claim 18, Applicant recites “distribution contacts” as an element of the signal conditioning modules, extending from the circuit boards of the signal conditioning modules, but subsequently recites the distribution contacts [being] terminated to the distribution circuit board.
It is therefore unclear whether said distribution contacts are an element of the signal conditioning modules, as presently recited, or if they are instead an element of the distribution circuit board to which they are terminated. Notably, Applicant does not recite any such termination of the distribution contacts to the signal conditioning module circuit board, suggesting that they are not in fact terminated on the signal conditioning module circuit board. Such a configuration would not result in the distribution contacts being an element of the signal conditioning module, but instead would result in the distribution contacts being an element of the distribution circuit board.
A review of the disclosure as filed suggests that the distribution contacts are in fact an element of the distribution circuit board. See, e.g., instant paragraphs [0052-53]. Moreover, there is no factual support for claiming the distribution contacts as a sub-element of the signal conditioning modules. While there is support for an electrical connection between the distribution contacts and the signal conditioning module (para. [0036]), this cannot be reasonably interpreted as the distribution contacts being an element of the signal conditioning module rather than an element of the distribution circuit board.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. For purposes of examination, claim 18 will be examined as if it instead recited “wherein the distribution assembly includes a distribution circuit board extending below the contact wafer stack, the distribution circuit board including distribution contacts terminated to the distribution circuit board and extending toward the circuit boards of the signal conditioning modules.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 8,192,232 (“Whiteman”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,109,959 (“Reynov”).
Regarding claim 1, Whiteman discloses:
An electrical connector assembly (FIG 1) comprising:
a connector housing (12) having housing walls (22, 24) forming a chamber (as seen by FIG 1, upper and lower walls extend rearwardly and form “a chamber” between the rearward extensions); and
contact wafers (30) arranged in a contact wafer stack (see FIG 1), the contact wafers received in the chamber (see FIG 1) and coupled to the connector housing (col. 3, ll. 9-10), each contact wafer including a wafer frame (body 102 comprises a base 160, which may be reasonably interpreted as “a wafer frame”), a contact assembly (lead frame 100) coupled to the wafer frame (col. 4, ll. 13-15), and a signal conditioning module (compensation components 150) coupled to the wafer frame (col. 7, ll. 14-16);
the contact assembly including signal contacts (120) forming data channels (inherent; contacts convey a signal and, thus, form a “channel” for communicating “data” and may therefore be reasonably interpreted as forming “data channels” as presently recited), the signal contacts having mating ends (122) and terminating ends (182; see col. 6, ll. 54-58), the mating ends configured to be mated to mating contacts of a mating connector assembly (col. 3, ll. 38-42), the terminating ends being electrically connected to the
wherein the signal conditioning module modify
Whiteman does not explicitly disclose the signal conditioning module comprising a circuit board and a repeater device mounted on the circuit board, wherein the data channels are electrically connected to the repeater device through the circuit board, and wherein the repeater device is configured to restore signals transmitted along the data channels.
Reynov discloses an electrical connector (e.g., FIG 3) having a plurality signal conditioning modules including a printed circuit board (115-1 through 115-N) on which a respective processor (120) is mounted (see col. 3, ll. 48-55). Reynov further discloses a plurality of signal contacts (125, 130) having mating ends (e.g., the right-hand side of contacts as shown in FIG 1) and terminating ends (e.g., the left-hand side of contacts as shown in FIG 1), the mating ends configured for connection to a mating connector (inherent) and the terminating ends electrically connected to the circuit board of the signal conditioning module (via electrical connections 140). Reynov further discloses the processor being configurable as a repeater device (col. 3, ll. 58-60) configured to restore signals transmitted along the data channels (inherent function of a “repeater” device). Reynov discloses that such a configuration enables “increase signal propagation distance without having a repeater…on the same PCB to which the electrical connector is connected” (col. 6, ll. 14-17).
Examiner therefore finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Whiteman to include a PCB mounted repeater device configured to restore signals transmitted along the data channels, thereby enabling an increased signal propagation distance without needing to provide a repeater on a PCB to which the connector is affixed, as is taught by Reynov.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Whiteman in view of Reynov (“the first combination”) discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the repeater device being a re-timer device (Reynov, col. 3, ll. 58-60; “a re-timer ASIC”).
Regarding claim 3, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the plurality of contact wafers (and thus the repeater devices affixed thereto) being provided parallel to each other in the wafer stack (see Whiteman FIG 1; Reynov FIG 3).
Regarding claim 4, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the signal contacts being arranged in pairs, the signal contacts of each pair being terminated to opposite sides of the circuit board (Reynov).
As may be seen from FIG 1 of Reynov, signal contacts 125, 130 may be reasonably interpreted as being provided in “pairs.” Reynov explicitly contemplates receiving (“RX”) and transmitting (“TX”) contacts. As seen by FIG 1, contacts 125 are terminates to a top half of electrical connections 140, which may be reasonably interpreted as traces of a printed circuit board. Contacts 130 are terminated to a bottom half of electrical connections 140. A “top” half and a “bottom” half are indisputably “opposite ends” with respect to each other. Thus, Reynov discloses “signal contacts arranged in pairs, the signal contacts of each pair terminated to opposite sides of the circuit board” as is shown by FIG 1, when the claims are appropriately evaluated under the doctrine of broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 5, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the wafer frame (Whiteman, 160) including a pocket (the channel shown in FIGS 4 and 5 may be reasonably interpreted as “a pocket”), the signal conditioning module being received in the pocket (as shown by FIG 6).
Regarding claim 6, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the contact wafer including a shielding element extending along the signal contacts providing electrical shielding for the signal contacts (Whiteman, cover 162 may be reasonably interpreted as “a shielding element” when it is overmolded onto the signal contacts, thereby isolating and electrically insulating them with respect to each other).
Regarding claim 7, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the wafer frame (Whiteman, 160) including a dielectric body (see col. 3, ll. 36-42) holding the signal contacts relative to each other (col. 3, ll. 19-22) and relative to the circuit board (inherent; body 102 holds the circuit board of the combined references, and body 102 is overmolded on lead frame 100 which holds the signal contacts 120).
Regarding claim 8, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the contact wafers each including a cable assembly (Whiteman, FIG 2:38) terminated to the signal conditioning module (FIG 3; cables 38 are terminated to terminating ends 124, which are in turn terminated to compensation components 150, thus the cables are at least indirectly terminated to the signal conditioning module of the combination of references).
Regarding claim 9, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 8 and further discloses the wafer frame (Whiteman, 160) including cable channels receiving the cables (FIG 3, where cables 38 extend inwardly with respect to the body, as denoted by dashed lines in the figure, inhering the presence of “cable channels” for “receiving the cables”).
Regarding claim 10, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 8 and further discloses (see Whiteman) the contact wafer extending between a front and rear (inherent), the signal contacts (120, 122) provided at the front, the cables (38) extending from the rear (as shown by FIG 3).
Regarding claim 17, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses a distribution assembly (see Reynov FIG 3, auxiliary contacts 135-1 through 135-M) coupled to the signal conditioning modules (see col. 5, ll. 9-11) of each of the contact wafers (as shown by FIG 3), the distribution assembly distributing power to the repeater devices of the signal conditioning modules (“auxiliary contact 135 may be…used to provide power to processor 120”).
Regarding claim 18, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 17 and further discloses the distribution assembly including a distribution circuit board (Reynov, 145) extending below the contact wafer stack (as shown by FIG 3), the signal conditioning modules including distribution contacts (135) extending from the circuit boards of the signal conditioning modules (as implied by FIG 2, where electrical connections 140 may be reasonably interpreted as representing electrical traces of a printed circuit board 115), the distribution contacts terminated to the distribution circuit board (as shown by FIGS 2 and 3).
Regarding claims 19-21, Applicant merely provides an alternative recitation of the subject matters found in claims 1, 8, 9, and 10. As shown above, the first combination discloses the subject matters of claims 1, 8, 9, and 10. As such, Examiner finds that the rejection of claims 1, 8, 9, and 10 apply, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matters as recited in claims 19-21.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-16 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.
Claims 22-27 are allowed.
Claims 11-16 and 22-27 recites substantially similar subject matter, and thus the following is a statement of reasons for allowance and for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record, taken alone or in reasonable combination with others, fails to disclose the subject matter of instant claims 11 and 22. Specifically, the prior art does not disclose the subject matter of claim 1 while further disclosing each contact wafer including a shell surrounding the wafer frame and signal conditioning module, the shell being thermally conductive and coupled to the repeater device to dissipated heat from the repeater device.
Examiner has made U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0204822 (“Blackburn”) of record with this Office Action. Blackburn generally stands for the proposition that a thermally conductive shell may be provided around a printed circuit board on which a repeater device is mounted (see FIG 3, where lid 234 of shell 230 is provided with a heatsink 252 configured to dissipate heat from integrated circuit 202 of repeater device 200). Blackburn does not, however, contemplate a stacked or otherwise “modular” connector formed from a plurality of wafers.
It does not appear that simply replacing the cover 162 of Whiteman with a lid similar to that of Blackburn would be possible, nor would doing so necessarily result in cooling of the repeater devices. As is evident from FIG 5 of Blackburn, provision of a heatsink on the cover of Whiteman would require additional space between adjacent contact wafers, which would require a substantially larger connector that may no longer be suitable. Moreover, it is unclear whether provision of such a heatsink on the cover of Whiteman would even result in any substantial cooling of the repeater device as the connector housing would substantially limit airflow over the heatsink element.
Examiner is unable to find or determine any motivation to modify Whiteman with the teachings of Blackburn. Thus, claims 11 and 22 distinguish over the prior art of record. Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form, including the subject matter of claim 1. Claim 22 is already in independent form and, thus, is allowed. Claims 12-16 and 23-27 depend from either of claims 11 or 22 and are therefore would be, or are, allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS K QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4050. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TULSIDAS PATEL can be reached at 571-272-2098. 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.
/THOMAS K QUIGLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights