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 based on application 22 16 5097.1 filed in EP on March 29, 2022. It is noted, however, that the application does not include a certified copy of foreign priority application EP 22 16 5097.1 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 16, 2024 has been considered by the examiner. An initialed copy of the IDS is included with this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
a. the drawings include text that measure less than .32 cm (1/8 inch) in height thereby failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p);
b. in FIG. 3, “ML_TECH’ ” should be “ML-TECH’ ” (see page 19, line 29);
c. in FIG. 7, “computer 202” should be “calculating unit 202” (see page 24, lines 12 and 14); and
d. FIG. 18 does not include “t3” as described on page 47, lines 31-32.
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.
Specification
The substitute specification filed January 15, 2026 has been entered.
The substitute specification of January 15, 2026 is objected to because of the following informalities:
on page 12, “exemplary embodiments” on lines 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and 27, respectively, should be “an exemplary embodiment”;
on page 13, “exemplary embodiments” on lines 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20 and 22, respectively, should be “an exemplary embodiment”;
on page 13, line 24, “Exemplary embodiments, Fig. 1, relate” should be “The exemplary embodiment in Fig. 1 relates”;
on page 14, “In some embodiments, Fig. 2” on lines 23 and 33, respectively, should be “In the embodiment in Fig. 2”;
on page 15, line 3, “In some embodiments, Fig. 7” should be “In the embodiment in Fig. 7”;
on page 15, “In some embodiments, Fig. 2” on lines 9, 14 and 21, respectively, should be “In the embodiment in Fig. 2”;
on page 16, In some embodiments, Fig. 1” on lines 7, 14, 22 and 30, respectively, should be “In the embodiment in Fig. 1”;
on page 17, line 8, “In some embodiments, Fig. 1” should be “In the embodiment in Fig. 1”;
on page 17, line 26, “In some embodiments, Fig. 2” should be “In the embodiment in Fig. 2”;
on page 18, “In some embodiments, Fig. 2” on lines 1 and 6, respectively, should be “In the embodiment in Fig. 2”;
on page 18, line 15, “In some embodiments, Fig. 1” should be “In the embodiment in Fig. 1”;
on page 18, line 25, “while” should be inserted before “also”;
on page 19, line 3, “In some embodiments, Fig. 1” should be “In the embodiment in Fig. 1”;
on page 19, line 8, “or” should be inserted before “b)”;
on page 19, “In some embodiments, Fig. 3” on lines 16 and 28, respectively, should be “In the embodiment in Fig. 3”;
on page 20, line 14, “In some embodiments, Fig. 4” should be “In the embodiment in Fig. 4”;
on page 22, line 10, “Further exemplary embodiments, Fig. 5, relate” should be “A further exemplary embodiment in Fig. 5 relates”;
on page 22, line 10, “Further exemplary embodiments, Fig. 5, relate” should be “A further exemplary embodiment in Fig. 5 relates”;
on page 23, line 11, “Further exemplary embodiments, Fig. 6, relate” should be “A further exemplary embodiment in Fig. 6 relates”;
on page 23, line 32, “Further exemplary embodiments, Fig. 7, relate” should be “A further exemplary embodiment in Fig. 7 relates”;
on page 24, line 5, “embodiment” should be “an embodiment”;
on page 26, line 14, “Fig. 2, 8” should be “in Figs. 2 and 8”;
on page 26, line 17, “In some embodiments, Fig. 8” should be “In the embodiment in Fig. 8”;
on page 35, line 24, one of the commas after “e.g.” should be deleted;
on page 36, line 19, “learns” should be “learn”;
on page 49, line 21 – page 51, line 8, the description of Fig. 22 is a single sentence that is difficult to understand. For example, although “modifying 301, for example optimizing 302”, on page 49, line 31 appears to be describing “optimizing” as an example of “modifying,” the separate reference character for separate steps (see FIG. 22) suggests that “modifying” and “optimizing” are different steps; and
on page 50, “a or the the wireless” on lines 3 and 15, respectively, should be “the wireless” (i.e. “a or the” should be deleted).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 17, line 4, “or” should be inserted before “b)”;
in claim 17, line 7, “or” should be inserted after “communication system,”;
in claim 20, line 2, “or” should be inserted before “b)”;
in claim 21, line 2, “or” should be inserted before “c)”;
in claim 23, line 3, “or” should be inserted before “b)”;
in claim 25, line 4, a colon should be inserted after “at least one of”;
in claim 25, line 6, “the mapping” should be “the modifying of the mapping”;
in claim 24, line 3, “or” should be inserted before “b)”;
in claim 26, line 3, “and” should be inserted before “c)”;
in claim 27, line 5, “or” should be inserted before “b)”;
in claim 27, line 10, a colon should be inserted after “at least one of”;
in claim 27, line 11, “modifying” should be inserted before “a mapping”;
in claim 28, line 4, “and” should be inserted before “c)”;
in claim 29, line 4, “or” should be inserted before “b)”;
in claim 29, line 7, “or” should be inserted after “communication system,”;
in claim 31, line 3, “causing” should be “cause”;
in claim 31, line 6, “or” should be inserted before “b)”;
in claim 31, line 9, “or” should be inserted after “communication system,”;
in claim 32, line 5, “or” should be inserted before “a2)”;
in claim 32, line 23, “or” should be added after “parameter,”; and
in claim 32, line 26, “or” should be inserted before “h2)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 17-27 and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regard to claims 17, 29 and 31, the specification, at the time the application was filed, does not describe the claimed invention with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention. (See MPEP 2163.I.A) Although detailed description broadly includes the limitations of the claimed invention, it does not provide any details of how the bit mapping and/or the symbol mapping is modified “based on” the recited first parameter and/or the recited second parameter.
For example, the scope of the claimed invention includes a method comprising a) modifying mapping of bits to symbols wherein the modifying is based on: c1) “a first parameter characterizing at least one performance indicator associated with a data transmission over the wireless communication system” and c2) “a second parameter characterizing at least one performance indicator associated with a positioning technique associated with the data transmission. However, the detailed description does not provide any details of how the modifying the mapping from the bits to symbols is modified (i.e. changed) relates to any changes to or values of the “first parameter” or the “second parameter.” Nor does the detailed description describe how both the first and second parameters in combination affect the “modifying” of the mapping from bits to symbols.
The scope of the claimed invention also includes a method comprising b) modifying a mapping of symbols to resources wherein the modifying is based on: c1) “a first parameter characterizing at least one performance indicator associated with a data transmission over the wireless communication system” and c2) “a second parameter characterizing at least one performance indicator associated with a positioning technique associated with the data transmission. However, the detailed description does not provide any details of how modifying the mapping of the symbols to resources is modified (i.e. changed) relates to any changes or values of the “first parameter” or the “second parameter.” Nor does the detailed description describe how both the first and the second parameters in combination affect the “modifying” of the mapping of symbols to resources.
Similarly, with regard to claim 20, the specification, at the time the application was filed, does not describe the claimed invention with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention. (See MPEP 2163.I.A) Although detailed description mentions the “first parameter” as characterizing a bit error rate or a symbol error rate, it does not provide any details of how the bit mapping and/or the symbol mapping is “based on” a bit error rate or a symbol error rate. For example, the specification does not describe how changing the bit mapping and/or the symbol mapping is changed is based either the bit error rate or the symbol error rate. Furthermore, the specification does not describe how to modify the bit mapping and/or the symbol mapping based on both the bit error rate and the symbol error rate.
Similarly, with regard to claim 21, the specification, at the time the application was filed, does not describe the claimed invention with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention. (See MPEP 2163.I.A) Although detailed description mentions the “second parameter” as characterizing correlation properties, autocorrelation properties or cross-correlation properties, the specification does not describe how each of the respective properties, individually or in combination, affect or relate to the modification of the bit mapping and/or the symbol mapping. For example, the specification does not describe how the bit mapping is modified based on a parameter that characterizes a particular autocorrelation property.
With regard to claims 24 and 25, the specification, at the time the application was filed, does not describe the claimed invention with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention. (See MPEP 2163.I.A) The detailed description mentions modifying at least one of a sequence detector and/or a correlation receiver. However, the specification does not provide: a. any details/components of the sequence detector and/or the correlation receiver; or b. any details of how to modify the sequence detector and/or the correlation receiver to convey that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 27, the specification, at the time the application was filed, does not describe the claimed invention with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention. (See MPEP 2163.I.A) The detailed description mentions modifying, using at least one machine learning technique, at least one of a sequence detector and/or a correlation receiver. However, the specification does not provide: a. any details/components of the sequence detector and/or the correlation receiver; or b. any details of how to modify the sequence detector and/or the correlation receiver to convey that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention.
Dependent claim(s) are rejected under the same ground(s) as the claim(s) from which it depends.
Claims 23, 28-30 and 32 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.
With regard to claim 23, it is unclear how the modifying steps in claim 23 relate to the modifying steps in claim 17, lines 3-5. The scope of claim 23 includes both the modifying steps in claim 17, lines 3-5 and the modifying steps using at least one machine learning technique recited in claim 23 (see “further comprising” in claim 23, line 1) but the detailed description does not describe modifying mapping in combination with another modifying mapping that uses a machine learning technique. Based on the detailed description, it appears that claim 23 should further limit the modifying steps in claim 17, lines 3-5 (i.e. “wherein modifying at least one of a) the mapping from bits … b) mapping of symbols…” of claim 17 “uses at least one machine learning technique.”
Claim 28 recites the limitation “the symbols” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 is indefinite since the scope of the claim is unclear. Claim 29 is a preamble (i.e. “an apparatus”) that does not include a transitional phrase (see MPEP 2111.03) or recite any additional components that define the scope of the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are unclear. (See MPEP 2173)
Claim 32 is indefinite because it recites the use of the method of claim 17 without reciting any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. (See MPEP 2173.05(q)) For example, claim does not recite any steps that constitute the use of the method to “provide a trainable device…”
Dependent claim(s) are rejected under the same ground(s) as the claim(s) from which it depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17, 19, 21, 22 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US Patent No. 9,300,517 B2).
With regard to claim 17, Park et al. discloses the claimed invention including a method comprising: modifying mapping from bits associated with data to symbols (see column 7, lines 54-59 wherein the “modulation order” modifies the mapping of the bits to the symbol) wherein the modifying is based on one performance indicated associated with data transmission (see column 7, line 65 – column 8, line 31 wherein Frame Error Rate (FER) or SINR are performance indicators associated with data transmission).
With regard to claim 19, Park et al. discloses the claimed invention including the resources having time resources and frequency resources. (See column 1, lines 25-30 and column 8, lines 54-56 wherein OFDM communication systems use time resources and frequency resources)
With regard to claim 21, Park et al. discloses the claimed invention. The recited limitation is directed to an alternate embodiment within the scope of claim 17 that is not disclosed by Park et al. and has not been given patentable weight.
With regard to claim 22, Park et al. discloses the claimed invention including considering channel information for modifying the mapping from bits to symbols. (See column 7, lines 65 – column 8, line 30 wherein “SNR” or “SINR” is “channel information” that relates to the modulation order, via the FER, for modifying the mapping from bits to symbols.)
With regard to claim 29, Park et al. discloses the claimed invention including an apparatus configured to modify a mapping from bits associated with data to symbols (see column 7, lines 54-59 wherein the “modulation order” modifies the mapping of the bits to the symbol) wherein the modifying is based on one performance indicated associated with data transmission (see column 7, line 65 – column 8, line 31 wherein Frame Error Rate (FER) or SINR are performance indicators associated with data transmission).
With regard to claim 30, Park et al. discloses the claimed including the apparatus as part of a wireless communication system. (See column 1, lines 23-30)
With regard to claim 31, Park et al. discloses the claimed invention including a non-transitory machine-readable medium on which is stored a computer program including instructions that, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform the following: modifying mapping from bits associated with data to symbols (see column 7, lines 54-59 wherein the “modulation order” modifies the mapping of the bits to the symbol) wherein the modifying is based on one performance indicated associated with data transmission (see column 7, line 65 – column 8, line 31 wherein Frame Error Rate (FER) or SINR are performance indicators associated with data transmission). (See column 31, line 55 – column 32, line 15)
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoydis et al. (US Patent No. 11,082,149 B2). Hoydis et al. discloses the claimed invention including a method comprising modifying, using a machine learning technique, a sequence detector sequence detector for detecting a sequence based on data received via the wireless communication (see Fig. 1 wherein “receiver 14” corresponds to “sequence detector” and the “configuration apparatus 18” modifies the “receiver 14”) wherein at least one common machine learning technique (see column 16, lines 9-14 and lines 52-59 wherein both the transmitter and the receiver includes a neural network thereby reading on “at least one common machine learning technique”) is used for performing modifying a mapping from bits to symbols (see column 18, lines 49-54, wherein “modulation order” in the transmitter relates to the modifying of mapping bits to symbols). (See also column 1, lines 15-20 and column 8, lines 59-65)
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ma et al. (US Publication No. 2024/0255608 A1). FIG. 13 of Ma et al. discloses the claimed invention including transmitting a first signal using symbols (see 1302); receiving at least one reflected portion of the first signal (see 1304) and determining, based on the first signal and the reflected portion of the first signal, a distance between an object at which the at least one reflected portion has been reflected and a device that transmitted the first signal (see 1306 and paragraphs [0036] and [0058]-[0059] wherein in paragraph [0036], the calculation of the delay that is used to determine the distance information is implicitly based on timing of the first signal transmission thereby reading on “based on the first signal” in the claim).
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.
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.
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. Park et al. discloses the claimed invention except for using the symbols for providing positioning reference signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention use the symbols for providing positioning reference signals based on the communication system in which the method is implemented. The intended use of the symbol does not affect/change the method that produces the symbol.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (US Patent No. 6,985,434 B2). Park et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the first parameter characterizing a bit error rate. Wu et al. discloses that a bit error rate (BER) corresponds a frame error rate (FER) (see column 2, lines 27-29) and that either BER and FER may be used (see column 6, lines 40-41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the frame error rate in Park et al. with the bit error rate to yield predictable results since both FER and BER are indications of received signal quality.
Claims 23 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Finkelstein (US Patent No. 10,560,303 B2). Park et al. discloses the claimed invention of claims 23 and 32, respectively, except for modifying the mapping from bits to using machine learning. Finkelstein teaches using machine learning to change modulation. (See abstract and column 21, lines 59-60) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mapping from bits to symbols (i.e. modulation) using machine learning in order to improve performance.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Hoydis et al.
With regard to claim 24, Park et al. discloses the claimed invention except for modifying a sequence detector for detecting a sequence based on data received via the wireless communication. Hoydis et al. discloses modifying a sequence detector sequence detector for detecting a sequence based on data received via the wireless communication. (See Fig. 1 wherein “receiver 14” corresponds to “sequence detector” and the “configuration apparatus 18” modifies the “receiver 14”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Hoydis et al. with that of Park et al. in order to provide an adaptable communication system with greater flexibility (e.g. for changing channel conditions). (See Hoydis et al., column 2, lines 35-42 and column 8, lines 59-65)
With regard to claim 25, Park et al. in view of Hoydis et al. discloses the claimed invention including using at least one common machine learning technique for modifying of the sequence detector and modifying of the mapping from bits to symbols. (See Hoydis et al., column 16, lines 9-14 and lines 52-59 wherein both the transmitter and the receiver includes a neural network thereby reading on “at least one common machine learning technique”)
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Ma et al. Park et al. discloses the claimed invention except for transmitting a first signal using some of the symbols, receiving at least one reflected portion of the first signal (see 1304) and determining, based on the first signal and the reflected portion of the first signal, a distance between an object at which the at least one reflected portion has been reflected and a device that transmitted the first signal. FIG. 13 of Ma et al. discloses the claimed invention including transmitting a first signal using symbols (see 1302); receiving at least one reflected portion of the first signal (see 1304) and determining, based on the first signal and the reflected portion of the first signal, a distance between an object at which the at least one reflected portion has been reflected and a device that transmitted the first signal (see 1306 and paragraphs [0036] and [0058]-[0059] wherein in paragraph [0036], the calculation of the delay that is used to determine the distance information is implicitly based on timing of the first signal transmission thereby reading on “based on the first signal” in the claim). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Ma et al. with that of Park et al. in order to provide an adaptive transmitter for joint communications and sensing.
Conclusion
Please note that non-cited portions of the respective references may also read on the claim limitations. Therefore, the references should be considered in their entirety.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Betsy Deppe whose telephone number is 571-272-3054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, 7:00 am - 3:00 pm (ET).
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, Sam Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/BETSY DEPPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633