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 .
Inventorship
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art document(s) submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on 3/17/2025 have all been considered and made of record (Note the attached copy of form PTO-892).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Para. 26 indicates Fig. 2 should include 100. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “100” has been used to designate both a cable and a polarity mapping. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to because Figures 8A and 8B are cut off and may be missing critical information or else include unessential information that should be deleted for clarity. 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Reference characters "108" and "110" have both been used to designate second connectors in at least Para. 25. The drawings indicate that only 110 should have been used.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8, line 4: “of the second connectors; and.” should have the period (.) after ‘and’ deleted.
Claim 18, line 8: “one of the second connectors; and.” should have the period (.) after ‘and’ deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 6 be found allowable, claim 16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. Applicant is advised that should claim 7 be found allowable, claim 17 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 and 20 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.
Claims 10 and 20 recites “wherein the multiple instances of the apparatus having a same polarity mapping”. Claims 1 and 8-9 upon which claim 10 depends do not define multiple instances nor that these multiple instances have a same polarity mapping. As such, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear how the apparatus has multiple polarity mappings that can be the same if claim 1 has only claimed a single polarity mapping for the entire device. Is the claim meant to reflect that the first set and the second set have portions of the polarity mapping that match in some way? Is the claim meant to impart that channel 1 receiver is mapped to channel 1 transmitter and are the same because they are labelled as channel 1? Is the claim meant to reflect that a channel 1 receiver is mapped to a channel 12 transmitter and a channel 12 receiver is mapped to a channel 1 transmitter and that the “sameness” is a result of only matching 1 to 12 and 12 to 1? What is meant to be “the multiple instances”? Instances suggests that the device changes over time but is not reflective of what these changes are supposed to be. Is the mapping meant to change in different scenarios to somehow create these multiple instances?
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iwasaki in US 20220278928 A1 (hereinafter "Iwasaki").
Regarding claim 1, Iwasaki discloses an apparatus (900, 910, 920, or 930; see Fig. 1-4), comprising:
a cable (906, 916, 926, or 936);
at least one first connector (each connector of 908, 918, 928, or 938 is either a QSFP connector or a MPO receptable; see Para. 8, 10, 12, and 14) affixed to a first end of the cable and each first connector comprising a plurality of first positions (see Fig. 1-4 where each connector is affixed to a first end of the cable and comprises a plurality of first positions since each cable requires at least one receiving first position and at least one transmitting first position);
at least two second connectors (Fig. 1-4 each show four interpreted second connectors: 902, 912, 922, and 932) affixed to a second end of the cable and each second connector comprising a plurality of second positions (see Fig. 1-4 where the interpreted second connectors are affixed to the second end of the cable; each connector necessarily comprises at least one receiving second position and at least one transmitting second position; note Para. 8, 10, 12, and 14);
a polarity mapping defining a plurality of connections between the least one first connector and the at least two second connectors (necessarily present based on Fig. 1-4 in order for the device to function; note Para. 20 which incorporated information related to optical polarity modules and systems),
wherein each of the at least one first connector is optically coupled to each of the at least two second connectors (see Fig. 1-4 where each interpreted first connector is optically coupled to respective interpreted second connectors).
Regarding claim 2, Iwasaki discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the cable is a fiber array jumper (the assemblies of Fig. 1-4 are interpreted as fiber array jumpers).
Regarding claim 3, Iwasaki discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein each first connector is a 16-fiber (16f) very small form factor (VSFF) optical connector (see Fig. 3 and Para. 12; QSFP-DD such as 928 is interpreted as a VSFF optical connector).
Regarding claim 4, Iwasaki discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein each first connector is configured to connect to a Type B trunk cable (MPOs such as 938 are capable of connecting to Type A, B, or C trunk cables; no guarantee is made that 938 will or will not have dead channels if connected to a Type B trunk cable, however the connector and cable are at least capable of physically connecting).
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ger et al. in US 20210231885 A1 (hereinafter "Ger").
Regarding claim 1, Ger discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a cable (see Fig. 4);
at least one first connector affixed to a first end of the cable and each first connector comprising a plurality of first positions (31 is interpreted as the at least one first connector affixed to a first end of the cable and each first connector comprising a plurality of first positions since transceiving and receiving positions are present in transceivers);
at least two second connectors affixed to a second end of the cable and each second connector comprising a plurality of second positions (30h and 30i);
a polarity mapping defining a plurality of connections between the least one first connector and the at least two second connectors (necessarily present; note Para. 20),
wherein each of the at least one first connector is optically coupled to each of the at least two second connectors (see Fig. 4 where 31 is optically coupled to 30h and 30i).
Regarding claim 2, Ger discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the cable is a fiber array jumper (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Ger discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein each second connector is a multi-fiber push on (MPO) connector (see 30h and 30i of Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Ger discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein each second connector is configured to connect to a Quad Small Form Factor Pluggable (QSFP) transceiver in a split-channel (mesh) configuration (see Fig. 3-4 and Para. 6-13; 30h and 30i are capable of connecting to QSFP 33a and 33b; the configuration shown is a split-channel).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 7, 11-14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki in US 20220278928 A1 (hereinafter "Iwasaki").
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Iwasaki discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above, but fails to teach wherein the plurality of second positions comprises positions for 12 optical fibers of which 8 positions are mapped to first positions in the first connectors.
However, there exists a finite number of polarity mappings, including a scenario wherein the plurality of second positions comprises positions for 12 optical fibers of which 8 positions are mapped to first positions in the first connectors. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have tried a variety of polarity mappings with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results and would have been motivated to see if any polarity mapping variations were easier to manage, handle, and/or install. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). "[A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Regarding claim 11, Iwasaki discloses an apparatus, comprising:
Iwasaki discloses an apparatus (900, 910, 920, or 930; see Fig. 1-4), comprising:
a cable (906, 916, 926, or 936);
at least one first connector (each connector of 908, 918, 928, or 938 is either a QSFP connector or a MPO receptable; see Para. 8, 10, 12, and 14) affixed to a first end of the cable and each first connector comprising a plurality of first positions (see Fig. 1-4 where each connector is affixed to a first end of the cable and comprises a plurality of first positions since each cable requires at least one receiving first position and at least one transmitting first position);
at least two second connectors (Fig. 1-4 each show four interpreted second connectors: 902, 912, 922, and 932) affixed to a second end of the cable and each second connector comprising a plurality of second positions (see Fig. 1-4 where the interpreted second connectors are affixed to the second end of the cable; each connector necessarily comprises at least one receiving second position and at least one transmitting second position; note Para. 8, 10, 12, and 14);
a polarity mapping defining a plurality of connections between the least one first connector and the at least two second connectors (necessarily present based on Fig. 1-4 in order for the device to function; note Para. 20 which incorporated information related to optical polarity modules and systems),
wherein each of the at least one first connector is optically coupled to each of the at least two second connectors (see Fig. 1-4 where each interpreted first connector is optically coupled to respective interpreted second connectors).
Iwasaki does not teach:
at least two first connectors affixed to a first end of the cable;
at least four second connectors affixed to a second end of the cable;
a polarity mapping defining a plurality of connections between the least two first connectors and the at least four second connectors,
wherein each of the at least two first connectors is optically coupled to each of the at least four second connectors.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the number of connections in order increase connectivity and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Regarding claim 12, Iwasaki discloses the apparatus of claim 11 as discussed above, wherein the cable is a fiber array jumper (the assemblies of Fig. 1-4 are interpreted as fiber array jumpers).
Regarding claim 13, Iwasaki discloses the apparatus of claim 11 as discussed above, wherein each first connector is a 16-fiber (16f) very small form factor (VSFF) optical connector (see Fig. 3 and Para. 12; QSFP-DD such as 928 is interpreted as a VSFF optical connector).
Regarding claim 14, Iwasaki discloses the apparatus of claim 11 as discussed above, wherein each first connector is configured to connect to a Type B trunk cable (MPOs such as 938 are capable of connecting to Type A, B, or C trunk cables; no guarantee is made that 938 will or will not have dead channels if connected to a Type B trunk cable, however the connector and cable are at least capable of physically connecting).
Claim(s) 8-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ger et al. in US 20210231885 A1 (hereinafter "Ger").
Regarding claim 8, Ger discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above, further comprising:
a fiber group comprising 16 optical fibers (see Para. 6), wherein:
a first set of the optical fibers is mapped from the first connector to a first one of the second connectors (40a is interpreted as the first set; see Fig. 4); and
a second set of the optical fibers is mapped from the first connector to a second one of the second connectors (40b is interpreted as the second set; see Fig. 4).
Ger does not disclose that the fiber group is a fiber ribbon.
However, fiber ribbons are well-known options for fiber cables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a fiber ribbon as the fiber group in the device of Ger for the purpose of better managing fiber organization thereby achieving increased efficiency during installation.
Regarding claim 9, Ger discloses the apparatus of claim 8 as discussed above, wherein the mapping enables individual channel lane mapping (necessarily present) to a Quad Small Form Factor Pluggable (QSFP) transceiver in a split-channel (mesh) configuration (see Fig. 3-4 and Para. 6-13; 30h and 30i are capable of connecting to QSFP 33a and 33b; the configuration shown is a split-channel).
Regarding claim 10, Ger discloses the apparatus of claim 9 as discussed above, but fails to teach wherein the multiple instances of the apparatus having a same polarity mapping can be used on both an XMT-RCV side and an RCV-XMT side of a QSFP channel.
However, there exists a finite number of polarity mappings, including the situation where the multiple instances of the apparatus having a same polarity mapping can be used on both an XMT-RCV side and an RCV-XMT side of a QSFP channel. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have tried a variety of polarity mappings with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results and would have been motivated to see if any polarity mapping variations were easier to manage, handle, and/or install. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). "[A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Regarding claim 11, Ger discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a cable (see Fig. 4);
at least one first connector affixed to a first end of the cable and each first connector comprising a plurality of first positions (31 is interpreted as the at least one first connector affixed to a first end of the cable and each first connector comprising a plurality of first positions since transceiving and receiving positions are present in transceivers);
at least two second connectors affixed to a second end of the cable and each second connector comprising a plurality of second positions (30h and 30i);
a polarity mapping defining a plurality of connections between the least one first connector and the at least two second connectors (necessarily present; note Para. 20),
wherein each of the at least one first connector is optically coupled to each of the at least two second connectors (see Fig. 4 where 31 is optically coupled to 30h and 30i).
Ger fails to teach:
at least two first connectors affixed to a first end of the cable;
at least four second connectors affixed to a second end of the cable;
a polarity mapping defining a plurality of connections between the least two first connectors and the at least four second connectors,
wherein each of the at least two first connectors is optically coupled to each of the at least four second connectors.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the number of connections in order increase connectivity and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Regarding claim 12, Ger discloses the apparatus of claim 11 as discussed above, wherein the cable is a fiber array jumper (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15, Ger discloses the apparatus of claim 11 as discussed above, wherein each second connector is a multi-fiber push on (MPO) connector (see 30h and 30i of Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ger et al. in US 20210231885 A1 (hereinafter "Ger") and in view of Wu in US 20220057592 A1 (hereinafter "Wu").
Regarding claim 18, Ger discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above, but fails to teach further comprising:
a first fiber ribbon comprising 16 optical fibers, wherein:
a first set of the optical fibers is mapped from the first connectors to a first one of the second connectors;
a second set of the optical fibers is mapped from the first connectors to a second one of the second connectors;
a third set of the optical fibers is mapped from the first connectors to a third one of the second connectors; and
a fourth set of the optical fibers is mapped from the first connectors to a fourth one of the second connectors; and
a second fiber ribbon comprising 16 optical fibers, wherein:
a fifth set of the optical fibers is mapped from the first connectors to a first one of the second connectors;
a sixth set of the optical fibers is mapped from the first connectors to a second one of the second connectors;
a seventh set of the optical fibers is mapped from the first connectors to a third one of the second connectors; and
an eighth set of the optical fibers is mapped from the first connectors to a fourth one of the second connectors.
Wu teaches a variety of polarity map configurations (see Fig. 3-7; see Para. 49 which especially discloses 16 optical fibers) and specific sorting configurations involving a major split between connectors (see Fig. 13-14 and Para. 36 and 77). Wu also teaches that fiber ribbon may be used (see Fig. 2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the configuration of Wu in the apparatus of Ger for the purpose of increasing organization, stability, and fiber management thereby achieving functional connections with increased installation efficiency. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art could have tried a variety of polarity mappings with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results and would have been motivated to see if any polarity mapping variations were easier to manage, handle, and/or install. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). "[A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Regarding claim 19, Ger/Wu discloses the apparatus of claim 18 as discussed above,
wherein the mapping enables individual channel lane mapping (necessarily present) to a Quad Small Form Factor Pluggable (QSFP) transceiver in a split-channel (mesh) configuration (see Fig. 3-4 and Para. 6-13; 30h and 30i are capable of connecting to QSFP 33a and 33b; the configuration shown is a split-channel).
Regarding claim 20, Ger/Wu discloses the apparatus of claim 19 as discussed above, but fails to teach wherein the multiple instances of the apparatus having a same polarity mapping can be used on both sides of the 2-fiber lanes of a QSFP channel: XMT to RCV and RCV to XMT.
However, there exists a finite number of polarity mappings, including the situation where the multiple instances of the apparatus having a same polarity mapping can be used on both an XMT-RCV side and an RCV-XMT side of a QSFP channel. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have tried a variety of polarity mappings with no change in their respective functions to yield predictable results and would have been motivated to see if any polarity mapping variations were easier to manage, handle, and/or install. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). "[A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARBY M THOMASON whose telephone number is (703)756-5817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/DARBY M. THOMASON/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights