DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216(2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)).
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 11 (and its dependents) recites a method for a transmit/receive antenna module. The claim therefore recites a process.
Claim 12 (and its dependents) recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The claim therefore recites a product.
Step 2A, Prong One — Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
Claim 11 recites,
transmitting an electromagnetic wave parallel to the substrate from the transmit antenna;
It is determined that the “transmitting data” limitation in claim 11 recites a mental process that can be performed by a human, or by a human using pen and paper, involving observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. In other words, a human can “transmit” the data. The limitation does not appear to be limited to any particular acts or operations that would prevent the limitation from being performed in the human mind as such process amounts to mental observations and/or evaluations. The limitation therefore falls within the mental process category of abstract ideas.
receiving an electromagnetic wave parallel to the substrate by the receive antenna.
It is determined that the “receiving data” limitation in claim 11 recites a mental process that can be performed by a human, or by a human using pen and paper, involving observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. In other words, a human can “receive” the data. The limitation does not appear to be limited to any particular acts or operations that would prevent the limitation from being performed in the human mind as such process amounts to mental observations and/or evaluations. The limitation therefore falls within the mental process category of abstract ideas.
Claim 12 recites,
transmitting an electromagnetic wave parallel to the substrate from the transmit antenna;
It is determined that the “transmitting an electromagnetic wave” limitation in claim 11 recites a mental process that can be performed by a human, or by a human using pen and paper, involving observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. In other words, a human can “transmit” the data. The limitation does not appear to be limited to any particular acts or operations that would prevent the limitation from being performed in the human mind as such process amounts to mental observations and/or evaluations. The limitation therefore falls within the mental process category of abstract ideas.
receiving an electromagnetic wave parallel to the substrate by the receive antenna.
It is determined that the “receiving an electromagnetic wave” limitation in claim 11 recites a mental process that can be performed by a human, or by a human using pen and paper, involving observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. In other words, a human can “receive” the data. The limitation does not appear to be limited to any particular acts or operations that would prevent the limitation from being performed in the human mind as such process amounts to mental observations and/or evaluations. The limitation therefore falls within the mental process category of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong Two — Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Claim 11 also recites,
transmitting an electromagnetic wave parallel to the substrate
As the “electromagnetic wave“ is recited broadly, this the recitation direction of the “electromagnetic wave” merely describes data; therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
receiving an electromagnetic wave parallel to the substrate.
As the “electromagnetic wave“ is recited broadly, this the recitation direction of the “electromagnetic wave” merely describes data; therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 12 also recites,
transmitting an electromagnetic wave parallel to the substrate
As the “electromagnetic wave“ is recited broadly, this the recitation direction of the “electromagnetic wave” merely describes data; therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
receiving an electromagnetic wave parallel to the substrate
As the “electromagnetic wave“ is recited broadly, this the recitation direction of the “electromagnetic wave” merely describes data; therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 2B — Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, we determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. See Memorandum.
Claim 11 also recites,
transmitting an electromagnetic wave parallel to the substrate
As the “electromagnetic wave“ is recited broadly, this the recitation direction of the “electromagnetic wave” merely describes data; therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
receiving an electromagnetic wave parallel to the substrate.
As the “electromagnetic wave“ is recited broadly, this the recitation direction of the “electromagnetic wave” merely describes data; therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 11 further recites,
a radar circuit arranged at a substrate, a transmit antenna arranged at a first end portion of the substrate and connected to the radar circuit, a receive antenna arranged at a second end portion of the substrate and connected to the radar circuit
Merely performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12 also recites,
transmitting an electromagnetic wave parallel to the substrate
As the “electromagnetic wave“ is recited broadly, this the recitation direction of the “electromagnetic wave” merely describes data; therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
receiving an electromagnetic wave parallel to the substrate
As the “electromagnetic wave“ is recited broadly, this the recitation direction of the “electromagnetic wave” merely describes data; therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 12 further recites,
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program which is executable by a computer for controlling a transmit/receive antenna module
Merely performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
a radar circuit arranged at a substrate, a transmit antenna arranged at a first end portion of the substrate and connected to the radar circuit, a receive antenna arranged at a second end portion of the substrate and connected to the radar circuit, wherein the program causes the computer to execute functions
Merely performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim requires no more than data gathering steps that collect necessary data for estimating, analyzing, and evaluating and requires no more than a generic computer to perform operations and generic computer functions that are well- understood, routine, and conventional activities.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-6 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trotta(US20160306034A1).
Regarding claim 1, Trotta discloses
A transmit/receive antenna module, comprising: a radar circuit arranged at a substrate (“FIG. 2c illustrates an embodiment radar transceiver device 250 that includes RF chip 251 disposed on redistribution layer or substrate 253” [0036]); a transmit antenna arranged at a first end portion of the substrate and connected to the radar circuit (FIG.2C, Parts.252); a receive antenna arranged at a second end portion of the substrate and connected to the radar circuit (FIG.2C, Parts.258 & 260), wherein the transmit antenna is capable of transmitting an electromagnetic wave parallel to the substrate (“Yagi-Uda antenna 252” [0036]), and the receive antenna is capable of receiving an electromagnetic wave parallel to the substrate (“Yagi-Uda antennas 258 and 260” [0036]).
Regarding claim 2, Trotta discloses
The transmit/receive antenna module of claim 1, wherein the radar circuit is arranged between the first end portion and the second end portion (FIG.2c, Part.251).
Regarding claim 3, Trotta discloses
The transmit/receive antenna module of claim 1, wherein an angle formed by a direction of a main lobe of the transmit antenna and a direction of a main lobe of the receive antenna is 90 degrees or more (“Yagi-Uda antenna 252” [0036] & “Yagi-Uda antennas 258 and 260” [0036]).
Regarding claim 4, Trotta discloses
The transmit/receive antenna module of claim 3, wherein the angle is 170 degrees or more and 180 degrees or less (“Yagi-Uda antenna 252” [0036] & “Yagi-Uda antennas 258 and 260” [0036]).
Regarding claim 5, Trotta discloses
The transmit/receive antenna module of claim 1, wherein the transmit antenna comprises a transmit antenna array including antennas (“multiple antennas may be used to implement directional beams using phased array techniques” [0005]), and the receive antenna comprises a receive antenna array including antennas (FIG.2C, Parts.258 & 260),
Regarding claim 6, Trotta discloses
The transmit/receive antenna module of claim 5, wherein the radar circuit comprises transmitter circuits (“ first transmitter front end 104 “ [0033]), receiver circuits (“ receiver front end 112” [0033]), and a clock generation circuit (“The transmit path includes clock generation circuits that may be shared between various elements of radar system” [0058]), at least a part of the antennas of the transmit antenna array is connected to each of the transmitter circuits (FIG.2c, Parts.251 & 252), at least a part of the antennas of the receive antenna array is connected to each of the receiver circuits (FIG.2c, Parts.251, 258 & 260), and the transmitter circuits and the receiver circuits are connected to the clock generation circuit (“The transmit path includes clock generation circuits that may be shared between various elements of radar system” [0058 & Fig.9a, Parts.902, 908 & 910])
Regarding claim 11, Trotta discloses
A method for a transmit/receive antenna module comprising a radar circuit arranged at a substrate (“FIG. 2c illustrates an embodiment radar transceiver device 250 that includes RF chip 251 disposed on redistribution layer or substrate 253” [0036]), a transmit antenna arranged at a first end portion of the substrate and connected to the radar circuit (FIG.2C, Parts.252), a receive antenna arranged at a second end portion of the substrate and connected to the radar circuit(FIG.2C, Parts.258 & 260), the method comprising: transmitting an electromagnetic wave parallel to the substrate from the transmit antenna (“Yagi-Uda antenna 252” [0036]); and receiving an electromagnetic wave parallel to the substrate by the receive antenna (“Yagi-Uda antennas 258 and 260” [0036]).
Regarding claim 12, Trotta discloses
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program which is executable by a computer (“microcontroller integrated circuit 954 may include firmware that is stored in a programmable non-volatile memory” [0081]) for controlling a transmit/receive antenna module comprising a radar circuit arranged at a substrate (“FIG. 2c illustrates an embodiment radar transceiver device 250 that includes RF chip 251 disposed on redistribution layer or substrate 253” [0036]), a transmit antenna arranged at a first end portion of the substrate and connected to the radar circuit (FIG.2C, Parts.252), a receive antenna arranged at a second end portion of the substrate and connected to the radar circuit (FIG.2C, Parts.258 & 260), wherein the program causes the computer to execute functions of: transmitting an electromagnetic wave parallel to the substrate from the transmit antenna (“Yagi-Uda antenna 252” [0036]); and receiving an electromagnetic wave parallel to the substrate by the receive antenna (“Yagi-Uda antennas 258 and 260” [0036]).
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.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trotta(US20160306034A1) in view of Smith(US20180213355A1)
Regarding claim 7, Trotta discloses
A system inspecting […], the system comprising: the transmit/receive antenna module of claim 1(“FIG. 2c illustrates an embodiment radar transceiver device 250 that includes RF chip 251 disposed on redistribution layer or substrate 253” [0036]); a first antenna module comprising at least a transmit antenna (FIG.2C, Parts.254 & 256); a second antenna module comprising at least a receive antenna (FIG.2C, Parts.262); and a signal generator module connected to the transmit/receive antenna module(“a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) generator coupled to the control input of the oscillator” [0118]), the first antenna module (FIG.9b, Part.958), and the second antenna module (FIG.9b, Part.958),
Trotta discloses a first antenna module, second antenna module, and a transmit/receive antenna module. Trotta does not explicitly disclose inspecting a first and second area between the first module, transmit/receive antenna module, and second module respectively. Smith teaches in the same field of endeavor of transmit receive antenna systems. Smith discloses, wherein the transmit antenna of the first antenna module is capable of transmitting an electromagnetic wave to the first area between (“placement of two or more perpendicular directional antenna 312 pairs in the interior 502 of a vehicle 500 may create zones 400FL, 400FR, 400RR, 400RL between seating quads that correspond to passenger seating locations (510FL, 512FR, 516RR, 514RL)” [0241]) the transmit/receive antenna module and the first antenna module (FIG.22, Parts.312-3, 312-5 & 512), the receive antenna of the transmit/receive antenna module is capable of receiving an electromagnetic wave from the first area (“the directional antenna may be connected to a transmitter or receiver.” [0089] & FIG.22, Parts.312-3 & 512), the transmit antenna of the transmit/receive antenna module is capable of transmitting an electromagnetic wave to the second area (“placement of two or more perpendicular directional antenna 312 pairs in the interior 502 of a vehicle 500 may create zones 400FL, 400FR, 400RR, 400RL between seating quads that correspond to passenger seating locations (510FL, 512FR, 516RR, 514RL)” [0241]) between the transmit/receive antenna module and the second antenna module(FIG.22, Parts.312-2, 312-3 & 510), and the receive antenna of the second antenna module is capable of receiving an electromagnetic wave from the second area (“the directional antenna may be connected to a transmitter or receiver.” [0089] & FIG.22, Parts.312-2 & 512).
Smith teaches in the same field of endeavor of transmit receive antenna systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Trotta with the teachings of Smith to incorporate the features of inspecting a first and second area between the first module, transmit/receive antenna module, and second module respectively so as to gain the advantage of improving accuracy [0177, Smith]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding Claim 8, Trotta as modified by Smith discloses all the limitations of claim 7. Trotta discloses wherein, the transmit/receive antenna module is configured to transmit the electromagnetic wave to the […] area in a first time period (FIG.8b, Part.822), the transmit/receive antenna module is configured to receive the electromagnetic wave from the […] area in a second time period (“ receiving a reflection of the frequency modulated signal, and determining a distance based on a time delay” [0005]) and the second time period overlaps with at least a part of the first time period (FIG.8b, Part.822 & 824 ).
Trotta discloses inspecting an area based on a transmitted and received signal. Trotta does not explicitly disclose that the area inspected is a first area located between the transmit/receive antenna module and the first antenna module and a second area located between the transmit/receive antenna module and the second antenna module. Smith teaches in the same field of endeavor of transmit receive antenna systems. Smith discloses wherein, a first area located between the transmit/receive antenna module and the first antenna module (FIG.22, Parts.312-3, 312-5 & 512).
Smith teaches in the same field of endeavor of transmit receive antenna systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Trotta with the teachings of Smith to incorporate the features of inspecting a first area between the first module and transmit/receive antenna module so as to gain the advantage of improving accuracy [0177, Smith]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding Claim 9, Trotta as modified by Smith discloses all the limitations of claim 7. Trotta discloses the system further comprising, a processor unit connected to the radar circuit (“FMCW radar system 800 that includes processor 802” [0054]) the processor unit is configured to perform an inspection of the […] area based on a transmitted signal used for transmitting the electromagnetic wave by the transmit antenna (FIG.2C, Parts.252) of the transmit/receive antenna module and a received signal (FIG.2C, Parts.258 & 260) obtained by the receive antenna of the transmit/receive antenna module (“Radar circuitry 106 provides signals to be transmitted to first and second transmitter front ends 104 and 110 and receives and/or processes signals received by receiver front end 112.” [0029])
Trotta discloses inspecting an area based on a transmitted and received signal. Trotta does not explicitly disclose that the area inspected is a first area located between the transmit/receive antenna module and the first antenna module. Smith teaches in the same field of endeavor of transmit receive antenna systems. Smith discloses wherein, a first area located between the transmit/receive antenna module and the first antenna module (FIG.22, Parts.312-3, 312-5 & 512).
Smith teaches in the same field of endeavor of transmit receive antenna systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Trotta with the teachings of Smith to incorporate the features of inspecting a first area between the first module and transmit/receive antenna module so as to gain the advantage of improving accuracy [0177, Smith]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding Claim 10, Trotta as modified by Smith discloses all the limitations of claim 9. Trotta discloses the system wherein, the inspection includes obtaining information regarding on presence or absence of the object and presence or absence of a predetermined item in the […] area (“target detection algorithm 1106 provides digital signal processing (DSP) functions for post-processing sampled IF data, and may be configured to detected targets and gestures” [0095] & “the position and gestures of hand 732 may be detected by radar transceiver device” [0052]).
Trotta discloses obtaining presence information of a predetermined item in an area. Trotta does not explicitly disclose that the area inspected is a first area located between the transmit/receive antenna module and the first antenna module. Smith teaches in the same field of endeavor of transmit receive antenna systems. Smith discloses wherein, a first area located between the transmit/receive antenna module and the first antenna module (FIG.22, Parts.312-3, 312-5 & 512).
Smith teaches in the same field of endeavor of transmit receive antenna systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Trotta with the teachings of Smith to incorporate the features of inspecting a first area between the first module and transmit/receive antenna module so as to gain the advantage of improving accuracy [0177, Smith]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s Disclosure.
Dean(US5602834A) is considered analogous art to the instant application as it discloses in [Col.10, ll.37-40] “a delay (e.g., one PN chip) sufficient to ensure that time diversity exists between the signals radiated by first and second linear coverage area antenna structures 210' and 212”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAYTON PAUL RIDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 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, Jack Keith can be reached on (571) 272-6878. 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.
/C.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/PETER M POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights