DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is cancelled and new claims 2-11 are presently under consideration as set forth in applicant’s response dated 28 October 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the prior rejections of record which are thus withdrawn.
Upon search and consideration of applicant’s new claims, new prior art was uncovered and new prior art grounds of rejection are set forth below.
Upon search and consideration of applicant’s new claims, new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are set forth below.
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.
Claims 7 and 8 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.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the detector circuit is configured to capture angle of chromaticity information of the impinging photons” but the originally filed claims and specification of the disclosure only appear to recite capturing “chromaticity information” broadly in paras [000148], [000152] and not specifically “angle of chromaticity information” as in claim 7. Thus it’s not clear that all the subject matter of claim 7 was 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 and claim 7 is rejected for failing the written description requirement.
Claim 8 is also rejected as it depends from claim 7.
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 9 and 10 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.
Claim 9 makes reference to “the transparent conductor” and “the absorber” but claim 2 from which claim 9 depends defines an array of photovoltaic devices each with an absorber and transparent conductor and thus defines multiple absorbers and transparent conductors. It’s unclear which particular absorber and transparent conductor are being referenced in claim 9 by “the transparent conductor” and “the absorber” or if claim 9 means to reference “the transparent conductor” and “the absorber” of each photovoltaic device in the array. As such, the scope of claim 9 cannot be determined and is rendered indefinite.
Claim 10 recites makes reference to “the transparent conductor” and “the absorber” and “the core” but claim 2 from which claim 10 depends defines an array of photovoltaic devices each with an absorber and transparent conductor and core and thus defines multiple absorbers, transparent conductors and cores. It’s unclear which particular absorber and transparent conductor and core are being referenced in claim 10 by “the transparent conductor” and “the absorber” and “the core” or if claim 10 means to reference “the transparent conductor” and “the absorber” and “the core” of each photovoltaic device in the array. As such, the scope of claim 10 cannot be determined and is rendered indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 2-3, and 11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Matsukubo (JP 2012156475A, reference made to attached English machine translation), and in further view of Miyamoto et al (WO 2020/137606A1, reference made to US 2022/0246538 as equivalent English translation).
Regarding claim 2 Matsukubo discloses a sensor to capture an image (para [0005]), comprising:
an array of a photovoltaic devices (Fig. 1), wherein each of the photovoltaic devices in the array comprises:
a core having a shape that is at least partially pseudospherical ([0017]-[0018], Figs. 1 and 3 see: p-type semiconductor 3 having mushroom columnar bodies formed between constriction forming portion 9 and a hollow portion 10 illustrated with surfaces having negative Gaussian curvature and meeting the definition of being “at least partially pseudospherical”);
an absorber disposed over the core and having a shape that is at least partially curved ([0017]-[0018], Fig. 1 see: n-type semiconductor 4 also functioning to absorb light); and
a transparent conductor disposed over the absorber and having a shape that is at least partially curved ([0017]-[0018], Fig. 1 see: transparent electrode layer 7);
wherein the transparent conductor has an index of refraction that is less than an index of refraction of the absorber such that the transparent conductor and the absorber function as a lens to refract impinging photons into the absorber ([0005], [0011], [0018] Fig. 1 see: transparent electrode layer 7 is ITO which has a refractive index smaller than the silicon n-type semiconductor 4 and thus functions to refract light into n-type semiconductor 4).
Matsukubo does not explicitly disclose the sensor captures a multidimensional image where it further comprises a detector circuit coupled with the array of photovoltaic devices, wherein the detector circuit is electrically connected to the photovoltaic devices in the array to capture multidimensional image information in response to the impinging photons refracted into the absorber.
However, Miyamoto teaches an image sensing device employing an array of photovoltaic devices ([0349]-[0364] Figs. 2-4 see: pixel array 121 of multiple pixels 131 each comprising a photoelectric converting element) where such an image sensing device captures a multidimensional image ([2609], [2684], [2843], [2735] see: image is based in multidimensional or three-dimensional distribution of data where light-reception information may be information associated with at least any of distance measurement, depth, and ToF, or information associated with at least any of pixels 131) and comprising a detector circuit coupled with the array of photovoltaic devices, wherein the detector circuit is electrically connected to the photovoltaic devices in the array to capture multidimensional image information in response to the impinging photons refracted into the absorber ([0349]-[0364], [2609], [2684], [2843] Figs. 2-4 see: pixel array 121 of multiple pixels 131 transmit signal data through signal lines 132 and controlled by control lines 133 outputting data to A/D converting unit 122, and logic circuit of a digital processing unit 112).
Miyamoto and Matsukubo are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of photoelectric conversion devices for use in image sensors.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Matsukubo in view of Miyamoto such that the device of Matsukubo employs an array of photovoltaic device of Matsukubo as in Miyamoto ([0349]-[0364] Figs. 2-4 see: pixel array 121 of multiple pixels 131 each comprising a photoelectric converting element) where such an image sensing device captures a multidimensional image as in Miyamoto ([2609], [2684], [2843], [2735] see: image is based in multidimensional or three-dimensional distribution of data where light-reception information may be information associated with at least any of distance measurement, depth, and ToF, or information associated with at least any of pixels 131) and comprising a detector circuit coupled with the array of photovoltaic devices, wherein the detector circuit is electrically connected to the photovoltaic devices in the array to capture multidimensional image information in response to the impinging photons refracted into the absorber as in Miyamoto ([0349]-[0364], [2609], [2684], [2843] Figs. 2-4 see: pixel array 121 of multiple pixels 131 transmit signal data through signal lines 132 and controlled by control lines 133 outputting data to A/D converting unit 122, and logic circuit of a digital processing unit 112) to provide the benefit of the light confinement effects of the photovoltaic device of Matsukubo (Abstract) in an image sensor.
Regarding claim 3 modified Matsukubo discloses the sensor of claim 2, and Miyamoto further discloses wherein the detector circuit is configured to capture time- of-flight information of the impinging photons ([2609], [2684], [2843], [2735] see: image is based in multidimensional or three-dimensional distribution of data where light-reception information may be information associated with ToF).
Regarding claim 11 modified Matsukubo discloses the sensor of claim 2, and Miyamoto further discloses wherein each of the photovoltaic devices in the array is directly addressable by the detector circuit ([0349]-[0364], [2609], [2684], [2843] Figs. 2-4 see: pixel array 121 of multiple pixels 131 each controlled by control signals from vertical scanning unit through the control lines 133).
Claim 4 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Matsukubo (JP 2012156475A, reference made to attached English machine translation) in view of Miyamoto et al (WO 2020/137606, reference made to US 2022/0246538 as equivalent English translation) as applied to claims 2-3 and 11 above, and further in view of Yu et al (US 2019/0346311).
Regarding claim 4 modified Matsukubo discloses the sensor of claim 2, but it’s not clear modified Matsukubo explicitly discloses wherein the detector circuit is configured to capture intensity information of the impinging photons.
Yu teaches an image sensor where the detector circuit is configured to capture intensity information of the impinging photons (paras [0010], [0012], [0034]) to provide improved dynamic range (see Abstract).
Yu and modified Matsukubo are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of image sensors.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Matsukubo in view of Yu such that the detector circuit is configured to capture intensity information of the impinging photons as in Yu (paras [0010], [0012], [0034]) to provide improved dynamic range as in Yu (see Abstract).
Claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Matsukubo (JP 2012156475A, reference made to attached English machine translation) in view of Miyamoto et al (WO 2020/137606, reference made to US 2022/0246538 as equivalent English translation) as applied to claims 2-3 and 11 above, and further in view of Yokogawa (US 2018/0351013).
Regarding claim 5 modified Matsukubo discloses the sensor of claim 2, but it’s not clear modified Matsukubo explicitly discloses wherein the detector circuit is configured to capture polarization information of the impinging photons.
Yokogama discloses a sensor where the detector circuit is configured to capture polarization information of the impinging photons (Abstract, paras [0118]-[0119]) to allow the sensor to emphasize or suppress a polarization component on a captured image (paras [0146]-[0149]).
Yokogama and modified Matsukubo are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of image sensors.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Matsukubo in view of Yokogama such that the detector circuit is configured to capture polarization information of the impinging photons as in Yokogama (Abstract, paras [0118]-[0119]) to allow the sensor the functionality of emphasizing or suppressing a polarization component on a captured image as in Yokogama (paras [0146]-[0149]).
Claim 6 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Matsukubo (JP 2012156475A, reference made to attached English machine translation) in view of Miyamoto et al (WO 2020/137606, reference made to US 2022/0246538 as equivalent English translation) as applied to claims 2-3 and 11 above, and further in view of Gravrand et al (US 2014/0312446).
Regarding claim 6 modified Matsukubo discloses the sensor of claim 2, but it’s not clear modified Matsukubo explicitly discloses wherein the detector circuit is configured to capture spatial variation information of the impinging photons.
Gravrand discloses a sensor where the detector circuit is configured to capture spatial variation information of the impinging photons (para [0118]).
Gravrand and modified Matsukubo are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of image sensors.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Matsukubo in view of Gravrand such that the detector circuit is configured to capture spatial variation information of the impinging photons as in Gravrand (para [0118]) for the express purpose of providing the additional advantage of providing the multidimensional image based on spatial variation information of the impinging photons.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Matsukubo (JP 2012156475A, reference made to attached English machine translation) in view of Miyamoto et al (WO 2020/137606, reference made to US 2022/0246538 as equivalent English translation) as applied to claims 2-3 and 11 above, and further in view of Arai (US 7,486,414B2).
Regarding claim 7 modified Matsukubo discloses the sensor of claim 3, but it’s not clear modified Matsukubo explicitly discloses wherein the detector circuit is configured to capture angle of chromaticity information of the impinging photons.
Arai discloses a sensor where the detector circuit is configured to capture angle of chromaticity information of the impinging photons (Arai, C5/L1-10 see: The characteristic quantities measurable by the colorimetric sensor 189 are color data (including the density, Saturation, hue, and distribution of each color where hue is considered to meet the limitation of angle of chromaticity information).
Arai and modified Matsukubo are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of image sensors.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Matsukubo in view of Arai such that the detector circuit is configured to capture angle of chromaticity information of the impinging photons as in Arai (Arai, C5/L1-10 see: The characteristic quantities measurable by the colorimetric sensor 189 are color data (including the density, Saturation, hue, and distribution of each color where hue is considered to meet the limitation of angle of chromaticity information) for the express purpose of providing the additional advantage of providing the multidimensional image based on angle of chromaticity information of the impinging photons.
Regarding claim 8 modified Matsukubo discloses the sensor of claim 7, and Miyamoto further discloses wherein a first one of the photovoltaic devices in the array is configured to detect impinging photons having a first wavelength, and a second one of the photovoltaic devices in the array is configured to detect impinging photons having a second wavelength ([2609]-[2610] see: pixels can be configured to detect different wavelengths of light from each other e.g. RGB (Red/Green/Blue)).
Claim 10 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Matsukubo (JP 2012156475A, reference made to attached English machine translation) in view of Miyamoto et al (WO 2020/137606, reference made to US 2022/0246538 as equivalent English translation) as applied to claims 2-3 and 11 above, and further in view of Bhan et al (US 2013/0112243) or alternatively in view of Fonash’744 (US 2014/0242744).
Regarding claim 10 modified Matsukubo discloses the sensor of claim 2, but it’s not clear modified Matsukubo explicitly discloses wherein the absorber and the transparent conductor have indices of refraction and thicknesses selected to function as an annular waveguide such that the photons impinging into the absorber travel circumferentially in the absorber about a center of the core.
Bhan teaches a photovoltaic device where the absorber and the transparent conductor have indices of refraction and thicknesses selected to function as an annular waveguide such that the photons impinging into the absorber travel circumferentially in the absorber about a center of the core ([0080]-[0082], Fig. 4 see: core 106, photovoltaic layers 104, 106, and outer conductive layer 110 configured such that light can be trapped within the device in a waveguide effect where light travels around the core 106) where Bhan teaches this waveguide effect greatly increases the absorption efficiency ([0080]-[0082]).
Alternatively, Fonash’744 also teaches a photovoltaic device where the absorber and the transparent conductor have indices of refraction and thicknesses selected to function as an annular waveguide such that the photons impinging into the absorber travel circumferentially in the absorber about a center of the core ([0012], [0029]-[0031], Fig. 4 see: core nanoelements with overlaying absorption layer and top transparent electrode providing a circuitous path of light laterally within the absorber to increase the chance of absorption) which provides increased absorption efficiency (paras [0029]-[0031]).
Bhan or Fonash’744, and modified Matsukubo are combinable as they are all concerned with the field of photovoltaic devices.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Matsukubo in view of Bhan where the absorber and the transparent conductor of Matsukubo have indices of refraction and thicknesses selected to function as an annular waveguide such that the photons impinging into the absorber travel circumferentially in the absorber about a center of the core as in Bhan ([0080]-[0082], Fig. 4 see: core 106, photovoltaic layers 104, 106, and outer conductive layer 110 configured such that light can be trapped within the device in a waveguide effect where light travels around the core 106) as Bhan teaches this waveguide effect greatly increases the absorption efficiency ([0080]-[0082]).
Alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Matsukubo in view of Fonash’744 where the absorber and the transparent conductor of Matsukubo have indices of refraction and thicknesses selected to function as an annular waveguide such that the photons impinging into the absorber travel circumferentially in the absorber about a center of the core as in Fonash’744 ([0012], [0029]-[0031], Fig. 4 see: core nanoelements with overlaying absorption layer and top transparent electrode providing a circuitous path of light laterally within the absorber to increase the chance of absorption) as Fonash’744 teaches this provides increased absorption efficiency (paras [0029]-[0031]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2, 4, and 8-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7, 9-10 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,009,444. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 7, 9-10 and 12 of the ‘444 Patent claim a display device with an array of photovoltaic devices as claimed in instant claim 2 with a matrix of conductor lines that receive signals from the photovoltaic absorber array including a direction, an intensity and a wavelength of impinging photons so that the signal provides a three-dimensional image and thus is not patentably distinct from the instant claim sensor which captures a multidimensional image and provides the multidimensional image information to a detector circuit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if the non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) were overcome as stated in the above section addressing NSDP.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record do not fairly teach disclose or make obvious the claim 9 limitation of wherein an interface between the transparent conductor and the absorber has a smoothness defined such that a distance between peak to peak features on a surface of the transparent conductor at the interface is less than about one tenth of a wavelength of the impinging photons divided by the index of refraction of the transparent conductor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7935. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-8pm.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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.
ANDREW J. GOLDEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/ANDREW J GOLDEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726