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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: In regards to claim 1, wherein clause, it appears that “respective distinct spectral of the…” should be -- respective distinct spectral signatures of the--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims which depend upon an objected to claim, inherit the problem of these claims, and are, therefore, also objected to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(s)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious Marshall et al. (2017/0184490) as cited by the applicant.
In regards to claim 1, Marshall discloses a method for spectroscopically analyzing a mixture of different molecules (via fig. 1 in view of the embodiment of figs. 19-20, abstract, ⁋ 92-94 and 141), the method comprising providing a liquid volume with the mixture having an initial concentration difference between different sub-volumes (sample and reference fluid) of the liquid volume which are fluidly interconnected and arranged at different locations along a spatial coordinate (as can be seen in fig. 1 and 19-20; ⁋ 37-38); and measuring a time-dependent spectrum (via 16 and 20 ⁋ 44, 94 and 141) of light interacting with the liquid volume at a measurement location (22 or 220) in one of the different sub-volumes, while the concentration difference at least partially equilibrates by diffusion of the different molecules (⁋ 54 and 94 ) between the different sub-volumes (Sample fluid and reference fluid) along the spatial coordinate (from right to left of page on fig. 19-20). While it is not explicitly disclosed that the time-dependent spectrum comprises respective distinct spectral signatures of the respective different molecules or particles, each spectral signature having a distinct time-dependent evolution in the time-dependent spectrum resulting from respective distinct diffusion characteristics of the different molecules, it is believed that this is either inherent or rendered obvious based on the disclosure. Specifically, Marshall discloses that the different fluids (reference and sample) contain different molecules or particles (⁋ 35-37 and 46), and further discloses measuring (⁋ 92) over time in order to determine the diffusion rate between the sample fluid and reference fluid (⁋ 94). As the sample fluid and the reference fluid are different, they would inherently have different spectral signatures, and further, as they diffuse together as discussed, the spectral signature of the sample would inherently have a time dependent evolution, as the reference material diffuses into it, and similarly the spectral signature of the reference fluid would have a time dependent evolution, as the sample material diffuses into it. However, if this is not inherent, based on the disclosure discussed in Marshall of using the device to determine the diffusion rate of one liquid or compound into another liquid (⁋ 94), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the method of Marshall include that the time-dependent spectrum comprises respective distinct spectral signatures of the respective different molecules or particles, each spectral signature having a distinct time-dependent evolution in the time-dependent spectrum resulting from respective distinct diffusion characteristics of the different molecules, as this would be required in order to accurately allow the device of Marshall to be used to determine the diffusion rate of one liquid containing molecules or particles into another liquid containing different molecules or particles.
In regards to claim 2, the concentration difference in the liquid volume is provided by supplying a first concentration of the mixture, with the different molecules or particles to be analyzed, in a first sub-volume (volume containing the sample volume), wherein the first sub-volume is fluidly connected to a second sub-volume comprising a liquid solvent (volume containing the reference volume and ⁋ 47) suitable for dissolving the different molecules or particles to be analyzed (⁋ 2), wherein the liquid solvent in the second sub- volume is provided at least initially without the mixture (⁋ 47 “pure solvent”).
In regards to claim 3, the first sub- volume comprises the mixture dissolved in the same liquid solvent as forming the second sub-volume (⁋ 33-34 wherein the analyte is dissolved in a solvent and ⁋ 46-47 wherein the reference “may be a representative matrix of the sample background without the presence of the analyte of interest” or “may be identical to the sample except containing analyte or analytes to be measured at known concentration").
In regards to claim 4, the second sub-volume (Reference fluid) is adjacent the first sub-volume (Sample fluid) and integrally connected via a liquid interface (226, as can be seen in figs. 19-20) extending in a direction (up and down the page) perpendicular to the spatial coordinate (left to right of the page) to form a contiguous liquid volume; wherein a light beam (going through 220) which is used for measuring the time- dependent spectrum exclusively interacts with a measurement location (220) which is exclusively located in the second sub-volume (for example in fig. 19), at a measurement distance from an initial liquid interface (as can be seen in fig. 19) between the first sub-volume and the second sub-volume (226).
In regards to claim 5, the first sub-volume (sample fluid) at one side of the liquid interface (226) essentially has a respective uniform concentration for each of the different molecules (⁋ 91 via homogenization) to be analyzed in the mixture; and the second sub-volume (reference fluid) at the other side of the liquid interface (226) essentially does not contain the different molecules to be analyzed in the mixture (⁋ 47 “pure solvent”).
In regards to claim 6, Marshall discloses the first sub- volume (sample fluid) and second sub-volume (reference fluid) are provided by generating a pair of parallel laminar flows (see figs. 19-20 and ⁋ 93) including a first flow (sample fluid) comprising the mixture of different molecules and an adjacent, second flow (reference fluid) comprising the liquid solvent (as discussed above), with a flow interface (226) between at least part of the first flow and second flow (as can be seen in figs. 19-20) wherein the first sub-volume is in fluid connection with the second sub-volume across a liquid interface (226) formed by the former flow interface. Marshall is silent to halting the flows to provide the first sub-volume formed by the halted first flow and the second sub-volume formed by the halted second flow, however it is disclosed in other embodiments that the system can control the flow of the two fluids via valves and pumps (fig. 18 and ⁋ 90). Further Marshall discloses measuring the diffusion rate at a stationary region (⁋ 93-94). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try to halt the flows to provide the first sub-volume formed by the halted first flow and the second sub-volume formed by the halted second flow by using the pumps and valves of Marshall, in order to yield the predictable result of allowing the measurement of diffusion rate when the flow is stationary, thus allowing a fully stationary region to be measured.
In regards to claim 7, the pair of parallel laminar flows (sample fluid/reference fluid) is generated in an elongate flow channel (as can be seen in figs. 19-20), wherein the measurement location (220) has a limited measurement range (as can be seen), along the spatial coordinate. Marshall is silent to the measurement location being less half a width of the elongate flow channel. However, it is noted that the range of the measurement location is a result effective variable, and further, Marshall discloses adjusting the range of the measurement location as needed (⁋ 92). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try to have the range of the measurement location be less half a width of the elongate flow channel in order to yield the predictable result of allowing measurement of the specific area where the diffusion is taking place. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; and In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
In regards to claim 8, the measurement location is determined by a beam having a length perpendicular to the spatial coordinate and having a width along the spatial coordinate to limit the measurement range (as seen in figs. 19-20, 220 and discussed in ⁋ 93). Marshall is silent to the measurement location being determined by an elongate slit. However, it is disclosed that the beam may be non-circular and further that the beam shape interrogating the sample may be longer in the direction of the fluid than in the direction orthogonal to the fluid flow (⁋ 93). The examiner takes official notice that beam shaping, such as that described by Marshall, is well-known to be able to be done by elongate slits. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include into the measurement system an elongate slit, as this is well-known in the art, and in order to allow the beam to be shaped such that may be longer in the direction of the fluid than in the direction orthogonal to the fluid flow.
In regards to claim 9, the measurement location (220) is determined by the shape of a light beam focused, at least along the spatial coordinate, in one of the different sub- volumes (⁋ 92-93).
In regards to claim 10, the mixture is analyzed, based on the time-dependent spectrum, by at least one of: determining the respective distinct spectral signatures of the different molecules; determining the respective distinct diffusion characteristics of the different molecules; determining a frequency and/or amplitude of spectral features in one or more spectral signatures of the different molecules; determining a respective size of one or more of the different molecules in the mixture; identifying one or more of the different molecules in the mixture; determining one or more respective concentrations of the different molecules (⁋ 141) in the mixture; determining a molecular structure of one or more of the different molecules in the mixture.
In regards to claim 11, a first measurement location (220) is located in the first sub-volume (sample fluid fig. 20) with the mixture initially comprising the different molecules to be analyzed, and a, distinct, second measurement location (220) is located in the second sub-volume (fig. 19, reference fluid and as discussed in ⁋ 141 with multiple static interrogation regions) with the liquid solvent, initially comprising none of the different molecules (as discussed above), wherein the time-dependent spectrum of light interacting with the liquid volume is measured at both the first and second measurement locations to determine a time- evolving concentration difference (⁋ 94 diffusion rate) between the different sub-volumes (as discussed above in relation to claim 1, this is either inherent to the disclosure or rendered obvious).
In regards to claim 12, Marshall discloses a system (fig. 1 and 19-20) for spectroscopically analyzing a mixture of different molecules, the system comprising sample cell (12) configured to provide a liquid volume (Reference fluid and Sample fluid together) with the mixture having an initial concentration difference between different sub-volumes (Reference fluid vs. Sample fluid and as discussed above in relation to claim 1) of the liquid volume which are fluidly interconnected and arranged at different locations along a spatial coordinate (as can be seen in both fig. 1 and 19-20); and a measurement device (16 and 20) comprising a spectrometer (⁋ 44) configured to measure a time-dependent spectrum of light interacting with the liquid volume (⁋ 94) at a measurement location (22 or 220) in one of the different sub-volumes (as can be seen in figs. 19-20), while the concentration difference at least partially equilibrates by diffusion of the different molecules (⁋ 94 and 141) between the different sub-volumes along the spatial coordinate (from right to left of page on fig. 19-20); and a processing device (28 and C of fig. 1 and as discussed in ⁋ 52 and 94) with a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed causes the processing device to process the time-dependent spectrum to determine respective distinct spectral signatures (⁋ 48 and 94) of the respective different molecule, and determine respective distinct diffusion characteristics (⁋ 94 and 141) of the different molecules. As discussed above in relation to claim 1 this would inherently or obviously be based on a distinct time-dependent evolution of each spectral signature in the time-dependent spectrum.
In regards to claim 13, the sample cell comprises an elongate flow channel (12); a first input port (18 when it allows sample 10 in the flow channel or the left inlet in figs. 19-20) for introducing the mixture with different molecules to be analyzed as a first flow (Sample fluid) into the elongate flow channel (as can be seen in figs. 1 and 19-20); a second input port (18 when it allows the reference into the flow channel or the right inlet in figs. 19-20) for introducing the liquid solvent as a second flow (reference fluid) into the same elongate flow channel (as can be seen in figs. 1 and 19-20), and at least one exit port for the mixture and/or liquid solvent to exit the elongate flow channel (waste); wherein the input ports are connected to the elongate flow channel via respective converging channels disposed adjacent each other in a direction transverse to a length of the elongate flow channel (as can be seen in figs. 19-20) to create a set of parallel laminar flows (as can be seen in figs. 19-20), including the first flow and the second flow (sample and reference fluid), along the length of the elongate flow channel (as can be seen in figs. 19-20) towards the at least one exit port (the waste port of figs. 19-20 would be the same as shown in fig. 1).
In regards to claim 14, Marshall discloses a positioning device (⁋ 141 “the position of the interrogation region within the fluid channel…may be varied by mechanical means) configured to adjust a position and/or size of a measurement area (220) relative to the different sub-volumes (sample and reference fluid) in the elongate flow channel (12). Marshall is silent to at least one plate forming a slit arranged to expose less than half of the elongate flow channel. However, it is disclosed that the beam may be non-circular and further that the beam shape interrogating the sample may be longer in the direction of the fluid than in the direction orthogonal to the fluid flow (⁋ 93). The examiner takes official notice that beam shaping, such as that described by Marshall, is well-known to be able to be done by slits. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include into the measurement system an elongate slit, as this is well-known in the art, and in order to allow the beam to be shaped such that may be longer in the direction of the fluid than in the direction orthogonal to the fluid flow. Further, it is noted that the how much of the elongate flow channel is exposed to light is a result effective variable, and further, Marshall discloses adjusting the light exposure as needed (⁋ 92). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try to have the slit arranged to expose less than half of the elongate flow channel in order to yield the predictable result of allowing measurement of the specific area where the diffusion is taking place. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; and In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
In regards to claim 15, the system comprises a pumping arrangement (fig. 18 and ⁋ 90) with a pumping device (⁋ 90) configured to receive the mixture and liquid solvent and generate a set of parallel laminar flows (as can be seen in fig. 19-20) in the sample cell, wherein the system is configured to measure the time-dependent spectrum including an indication of time (as discussed above in relation to the diffusion rate ⁋ 94 and 141). Marshall is silent to controlling the pumping device (42) to stop the flows at a starting time (TO), and measuring the time dependent spectrum in relation to that starting time. However, it is disclosed to measure the diffusion rate at a stationary region (⁋ 93-94). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try to stop the flow at a starting time and relate this to the measuring the time dependent spectrum, in order to yield the predictable result of allowing the measurement of diffusion rate when the entirety flow is stationary.
In regards to claim 16, Marshall discloses a sample cell (fig. 1 and 19-20) for spectroscopically analyzing a mixture of different molecules or particles, the sample cell comprising: an elongate flow channel (12); a first input port for introducing a mixture with the different molecules or particles to be analyzed as a first flow into the elongate flow channel (18 when it introduces sample fluid 10; or left side of figs. 19-20); a second input port for introducing a liquid solvent as a second flow into the same elongate flow channel (18 when it introduces reference fluid 14; or right side of figs. 19-20), and at least one exit port for the mixture and/or liquid solvent to exit the elongate flow channel (waste port); and a positioning device configured to adjust a position and/or size of a measurement beam to the different sub-volumes in the elongate flow channel (⁋ 141 “the position of the interrogation region within the fluid channel…may be varied by mechanical means); wherein the input ports are connected to the elongate flow channel via respective converging channels disposed adjacent each other in a direction transverse to a length of the elongate flow channel to create a set of parallel laminar flows, including the first flow and the second flow, along the length of the elongate flow channel towards the at least one exit port (as can be seen in figs. 19-20). Marshall is silent to at least one plate forming a slit arranged to expose less than half of the elongate flow channel. However, it is disclosed that the beam may be non-circular and further that the beam shape interrogating the sample may be longer in the direction of the fluid than in the direction orthogonal to the fluid flow (⁋ 93). The examiner takes official notice that beam shaping, such as that described by Marshall, is well-known to be able to be done by slits. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include into the measurement system an elongate slit, as this is well-known in the art, and in order to allow the beam to be shaped such that may be longer in the direction of the fluid than in the direction orthogonal to the fluid flow. Further, it is noted that how much of the elongate flow channel is exposed to light is a result effective variable, and further, Marshall discloses adjusting the light exposure as needed (⁋ 92). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try to have the slit arranged to expose less than half of the elongate flow channel in order to yield the predictable result of allowing measurement of the specific area where the diffusion is taking place. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; and In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
In regards to claim 18, the slit is arranged at a distance from a center of the elongate flow channel (as is seen in figs. 19-20, the measurement beam is arranged near the beginning of the flow channel, and therefore would be arranged at a distance from the center of the elongate flow channel).
In regards to claim 19, The sample cell is configured to be arranged as a separate component in a spectrometer configured to measure a sample inside the elongate flow channel exposed by the slit (as can be seen in fig. 1, for example). The shape of the sample cell appears to be merely a matter of design choice, and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to shape the sample cell to fit into a measurement apparatus (See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 ). Further to make the sample cell be replaceably arranged with an outer frame fitting in a slot of a spectrometer would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to allow the device to easily be separated for replacement of a new sample cell or for cleaning (See In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) wherein when making items separable from each other, it if were desirable for any reason, it would be obvious to make the item removable for that purpose).
In regards to claim 20, the elongate channel forms part of a Y- shaped channel (as can be seen in figs. 19-20), wherein the first input port is connected to a first input branch of the Y-shaped channel (left side inputting the sample fluid), wherein the second input port is connected to a second input branch of the Y-shaped channel (right side inputting the reference fluid), wherein the first input branch and the second input branch are configured to come together to form a laminar flow comprising the first flow flowing adjacent and parallel to the second flow in the elongate channel (as can be seen in figs. 19-20).
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall et al. (2015/0276588). *It is noted that this reference can be used to reject claims 1-15 in a similar manner as described above to the rejection based on the ‘490 reference as it describes similar subject matter. However for brevity, this rejection is only directed to the sample cell.
In regards to claim 16, Marshall discloses a sample cell (fig. 1-3, 19-20, 24 and 27) for spectroscopically analyzing a mixture of different molecules or particles, the sample cell comprising: an elongate flow channel (12); a first input port for introducing a mixture with the different molecules or particles to be analyzed as a first flow into the elongate flow channel (18 when it introduces sample fluid 10; or left side of figs. 19-20); a second input port for introducing a liquid solvent as a second flow into the same elongate flow channel (18 when it introduces reference fluid 14; or right side of figs. 19-20), at least one exit port for the mixture and/or liquid solvent to exit the elongate flow channel (waste port); at least one plate forming an apertured arranged to expose a specific amount of the elongate flow channel (⁋ 62 “one or more optical apertures or baffles may be used to limit the sampling region”), and a positioning device configured to adjust a position and/or size of a measurement beam to the different sub-volumes in the elongate flow channel (⁋ 140 “the position of the interrogation region within the fluid channel…may be varied by mechanical means); wherein the input ports are connected to the elongate flow channel via respective converging channels disposed adjacent each other in a direction transverse to a length of the elongate flow channel to create a set of parallel laminar flows, including the first flow and the second flow, along the length of the elongate flow channel towards the at least one exit port (as can be seen in figs. 19-20). Marshall is silent to the at least one plate forming a slit arranged to expose less than half of the elongate flow channel. However, it is disclosed that the plate contains an aperture (⁋ 62), that the beam may be non-circular and further that the beam shape interrogating the sample may be longer in the direction of the fluid than in the direction orthogonal to the fluid flow (⁋ 92). The examiner takes official notice that beam shaping, such as that described by Marshall, is well-known to be able to be done by slits. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include into the measurement system an elongate slit, as this is well-known in the art, and in order to allow the beam to be shaped such that may be longer in the direction of the fluid than in the direction orthogonal to the fluid flow. Further, it is noted that how much of the elongate flow channel is exposed to light is a result effective variable, and further, Marshall discloses adjusting the light exposure as needed (⁋ 92). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try to have the slit arranged to expose less than half of the elongate flow channel in order to yield the predictable result of allowing measurement of the specific area where the diffusion is taking place. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; and In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
In regards to claim 17, the sample cell comprises a front cover (fig. 2, 32), a back cover (38), and a spacer there between (40 and 42 create space between windows), wherein the spacer forms a flow structure between the input ports (40) and the at least one output port (42), wherein at least one of the front cover and the back cover each forms a respective window allowing transmission of the light used for measuring a sample inside (⁋ 62).
In regards to claim 18, the slit arranged is arranged at a distance from a center of the elongate flow channel (as is seen in figs. 19-20, the measurement beam is arranged near the beginning of the flow channel, and therefore would be arranged at a distance from the center of the elongate flow channel).
In regards to claim 19, an outer frame of the sample cell has a rectangular shape (as can be seen in fig. 24 and 27 for example), the sample cell is configured to be replaceably arranged as a separate component (⁋ 119) in a spectrometer configured to measure a sample inside the elongate flow channel exposed by the slit (as can be seen in fig. 1, for example). Marshall is silent to the sample cell being replaceably arranged with an outer frame fitting in a slot of a spectrometer. However, it is disclosed that the cell is replaceable (⁋ 119) and it is shown as being placed within a spectrometer (in fig. 1, for example). Further, the examiner takes official notice that having outer frames that fit into slots of a system is well known in the art of replaceable single use items, and it is done for easier alignment of the item to the system it is disposed in. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the cell with an outer frame fitting in a slot of a spectrometer in order to allow the device to be easily be separated and then aligned for replacement of a new sample cell within the spectrometer.
In regards to claim 20, the elongate channel forms part of a Y- shaped channel (as can be seen in figs. 19-20, 24 and 27), wherein the first input port is connected to a first input branch of the Y-shaped channel (left side inputting the sample fluid), wherein the second input port is connected to a second input branch of the Y-shaped channel (right side inputting the reference fluid), wherein the first input branch and the second input branch are configured to come together to form a laminar flow comprising the first flow flowing adjacent and parallel to the second flow in the elongate channel (as can be seen in figs. 19-20).
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art of record is Daneshvar et al. (“A Study of the Transport Properties of [Bmim]BF4 and PEG Mixtures Using Diffusion-Ordered NMR and UV−Visible Spectroscopy Techniques”), Guibertoni et al. (“Infrared Diffusion-Ordered Spectroscopy Reveals Molecular Size and Structure”), Dambrine et al. (“Interdiffusion of liquids of different viscosities in a microchannel”), Atwood (WO2021/097301), Malmqvist et al. (US 6200814).
All references disclose using optical means and sample cells to measure diffusion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARA E GEISEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm.
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, Allana Bidder can be reached at 571-272-5560. 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.
/KARA E. GEISEL/
Art Unit 2877