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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “translation stage” and the “second translation stage” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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 22-24 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.
The courts have described the essential question to be addressed in a description requirement issue in a variety of ways. An objective standard for determining compliance with the written description requirement is, "does the description clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that he or she invented what is claimed." In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Under Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991), to satisfy the written description requirement, an applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention, and that the invention, in that context, is whatever is now claimed.
While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).
In the case at hand, the limitation “reading out the one or more nonlinear emitters using the optical cavity” specifies a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed. The term “reading out” only appears once in the specifications with no context as to how the optical cavity is used to achieve said “readout.” Further, there is no flow chart or image presented in the drawings to provide context as to how the limitation is executed.
Further, the limitation “entangling the one or more nonlinear emitters with a photon that is coupled into the optical cavity” also specifies a desired result which the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed. The term “entangling” only appears once in the specifications with no context as to how said entangling is accomplished. Further, there is no flow chart or image presented in the drawings to provide context as to how the limitation is executed.
The same issue applies to the limitation “driving the one or more nonlinear emitters to deterministically generating a single photon that is emitted into a mode of the optical cavity.” Figure 10 illustrates a method of driving the optical cavity such that two longitudinal modes of the optical cavity are excited. However, no mention is made throughout the specifications of how the non-linear emitter is driven to generate a single photon. Further, there is no flow chart or image presented in the drawings to provide context as to how the limitation is executed.
Finally, the limitation “said driving comprises driving cavity-vacuum-assisted Raman transitions of the one or more atoms between a first hyperfine ground state and a second hyperfine ground state” is a desired result which the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed. As mentioned above, there is no mention in the specifications as to how the non-linear emitter is driven. Moreover, the term “Raman” only appears once in the specifications with no description of how said Raman transitions between two hyperfine ground states are achieved. Further, there is no flow chart or image presented in the drawings to provide context as to how the limitation is executed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 9-10, 16, 20 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Jeremy Axelrod (US 11990313), hereinafter referred to as Axelrod.
Regarding claim 1, Axelrod discloses an optical cavity (optical cavity 110) comprising: a plurality of mirrors positioned to reflect light along a closed path (CM=cavity mirror 512), first and second mirrors of the plurality of mirrors defining an optical axis therebetween (Fig. 5 below); and first and second intracavity lenses located along the optical axis (CL=coupling lens 510); wherein a mode of the optical cavity has a waist located between the first and second intracavity lenses (Fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
356
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Axelrod dislcoses the optical cavity of claim 1, the waist being less than ten microns (The mode waist corresponding to NA.sub.b is s=λ(πNA).sup.−1=6.46 μm).
Regarding claim 5, Axelrod discloses the optical cavity of claim 1, each of the first and second intracavity lenses comprising a microscope objective or an aspheric lens (coupling aspherical lenses 602).
Regarding claim 9, Axelrod discloses the optical cavity of claim 1, the first and second mirrors forming a Fabry- Perot cavity (In some embodiments, laser intensity is built up by resonance in a high-finesse, near-concentric Fabry-Pérot cavity (see optical cavity 110, in FIG. 1) (col. 10, lines 50-52)).
Regarding claim 10, Axelrod teaches the optical cavity of claim 9, wherein: the first mirror and first intracavity lens are separated by a first distance; and the second mirror and second intracavity lens are separated by a second distance that is different than the first distance (Alignment of the near-concentric cavity 110, requiring angular precision better than 1 μrad, is achieved by three fine-pitched micrometer screws providing rough alignment… Using the tilt and axial motion degrees of freedom of one of the mirrors, the cavity 110 was brought to a near-concentric configuration (col. 21, lines 12-28)).
As described by Axelrod, the cavity is “near concentric” with a certain error of precision in the alignment of the cavity. Therefore, there is inherently a difference in the distance between the first mirror and first lens, and the second mirror and second lens.
Regarding claim 16, Axelrod teaches the optical cavity of claim 1, further comprising a vacuum chamber within which the first and second intracavity lenses are mounted (The cavity 110 is suspended in a vacuum chamber pumped down to 2.Math.10.sup.−7 mbar, emulating the environment of an existing TEM column and preventing undesirable ionization of air molecules (col. 21, lines 23-26)).
Regarding claim 20, Axelrod teaches a method for cavity quantum electrodynamics, comprising confining one or more nonlinear emitters near the waist of the optical cavity of claim 1 (In an embodiment, the optical cavity phase plate can be applied to generate a 3-dimensional optical trap of extreme depth. Trap depths can be in the range of tens or even hundreds of Kelvin, trapping, for example room-temperature atoms and localizing them in space to better than 0.5 microns, even for species for which cooling is difficult (col. 29, line 63 – col. 30, line 1)).
Regarding claim 26, Axelrod teaches the method of claim 20, wherein: the one or more nonlinear emitters comprises one or more atoms; and said confining comprises trapping the one or more atoms (In an embodiment, the optical cavity phase plate can be applied to generate a 3-dimensional optical trap of extreme depth. Trap depths can be in the range of tens or even hundreds of Kelvin, trapping, for example room-temperature atoms and localizing them in space to better than 0.5 microns, even for species for which cooling is difficult (col. 29, line 63 – col. 30, line 1)).
Claims 1-2, 4, 20 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Canuel Benjamin (FR 3054773 B1), hereinafter referred to as Benjamin.
Regarding claim 1, Benjamin discloses an optical cavity (optical cavity 100) comprising: a plurality of mirrors positioned to reflect light along a closed path, first and second mirrors of the plurality of mirrors defining an optical axis therebetween (two plane mirrors 11, 12); and first and second intracavity lenses located along the optical axis (two intra-cavity lenses 21, 22); wherein a mode of the optical cavity has a waist located between the first and second intracavity lenses (Fig. 10 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
270
478
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Canuel discloses the optical cavity of claim 1, having a finesse of less than 1000 (Figure 9, illustrates simulations of optical gain, respectively of finesse, of a resonant optical cavity according to the second embodiment according to the reflectivity of the mirrors, for different transmission coefficients of the intra lens -cavity).
PNG
media_image3.png
246
474
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Benjamin discloses the optical cavity of claim 1, the first and second intracavity lenses having a similar numerical aperture (Preferably, the first lens 21 is chosen identical to the second lens pg. 16, para. [0003]).
Regarding claim 20, Benjamin discloses a method for cavity quantum electrodynamics, comprising confining one or more nonlinear emitters near the waist of the optical cavity of claim 1 (A magneto-optical trap is formed in the second part 82 of the cavity 100. The arrows 18 represent the directions of counterpropagating laser beams (projected in the plane of FIG. 11) used in combination with magnetic means to trap a puff of atoms 60 (pg. 19, para. [0001])) (Fig. 10 above).
Regarding claim 26, Benjamin discloses the method of claim 20, wherein: the one or more nonlinear emitters comprises one or more atoms; and said confining comprises trapping the one or more atoms (A magneto-optical trap is formed in the second part 82 of the cavity 100. The arrows 18 represent the directions of counterpropagating laser beams (projected in the plane of FIG. 11) used in combination with magnetic means to trap a puff of atoms 60 (pg. 19, para. [0001])).
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.
Claims 7 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benjamin, in view of Nogrette, Florence, et al. "Single-atom trapping in holographic 2D arrays of microtraps with arbitrary geometries." Physical Review X 4.2 (2014): 021034, hereinafter referred to as Nogrette.
Regarding claim 7, Benjamin fails to explicitly teach the optical cavity of claim 1, one or both of the first and second intracavity lenses having a numerical aperture greater than or equal to 0.5.
However, Nogrette teaches one or both of the first and second intracavity lenses having a numerical aperture greater than or equal to 0.5 (We use a D-ZLaF52LA aspheric lens from LightPath technologies. It is optimized at 780 nm for an infinite-to-focus conjugation with a numerical aperture NA =0.54) (Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
518
848
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Benjamin teaches a magneto-optical trap for the trapping of cold atoms using two plane mirrors and two intracavity lenses. Nogrette also teaches the use of a magneto optical trap for the trapping of cold atoms through the use of intracavity lenses as shown in Figure 1 above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Benjamin to include the teachings of Nogrette by using the lenses of Nogrette as the intracavity lenses of Benjamin. Lenses with a numerical aperture of 0.5 are proven in the art to effectively trap a cloud of cold atoms in a magneto-optical trap.
Regarding claim 16, Benjamin fails to explicitly teach the optical cavity of claim 1, further comprising a vacuum chamber within which the first and second intracavity lenses are mounted.
However, Nogrette teaches a vacuum chamber within which the first and second intracavity lenses are mounted (Fig. 1 above).
Benjamin teaches a magneto-optical trap for the trapping of cold atoms using two plane mirrors and two intracavity lenses. Nogrette also teaches the use of a magneto optical trap for the trapping of cold atoms through the use of intracavity lenses as shown in Figure 1 above. Although Benajim does not explicitly teach a vacuum cahmber, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Benjamin to include the teachings of Nogrette by incorporating a vacuum chamber within which the first and second intracavity lenses are mounted. Doing so is necessary to prevent outside forces and contamination from preventing the trapping of the atoms.
Regarding claim 17, Benjamin fails to explicitly teach the optical cavity of claim 16, the vacuum chamber comprising: a first vacuum window located between the first intracavity lens and the first mirror; and a second vacuum window located between the second intracavity lens and the second mirror; wherein the first and second mirrors are located outside of the vacuum chamber.
However, Nogrette teaches two intracavity lenses housed within a vacuum chamber with a first and second vacuum window (Fig. 1 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image5.png
518
969
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Benjamin to include the teachings of Nogrette by placing the first and second intracavity lenses of Benajmin in a vacuum chamber as shown in Nogrette such that a first vacuum window located between the first intracavity lens and the first mirror; and a second vacuum window located between the second intracavity lens and the second mirror. In order to trap the cold atoms, the trapping region must be well isolated from the outside environment.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benjamin, in view of Bernon, Simon. Trapping and nondemolition measurement of cold atoms in a high-finesse ring cavity. Diss. Ecole Polytechnique X, 2011, hereinafter referred to as Bernon.
Regarding claim 8, Benjamin fails to teach the optical cavity of claim 1, the plurality of mirrors comprising three or more mirrors forming a ring cavity.
However, Bernon teaches the plurality of mirrors comprising three or more mirrors forming a ring cavity (Fig. 3.1 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
294
672
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Benjamin teaches a magneto-optical trap for the trapping of cold atoms. Bernon also teaches an optical cavity for the trapping of cold atoms. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Benjamin by adding a third mirror such that the cavity becomes a ring cavity. Doing so allows for the achievement of 80% coupling efficiency (pg. 50, para. [0002]) and a finesse of 417 (pg. 51, Remarks).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benjamin in view of Fumio Nagai (US 20080193083), hereinafter referred to as Nagai.
Regarding claim 14, Benjamin fails to teach the optical cavity of claim 1, further comprising a translation stage that, when actuated, translates the first intracavity lens transversely to the optical axis.
However, Nagai teaches a translation stage that, when actuated, translates the first intracavity lens transversely to the optical axis (These two lenses can be driven for correction by the actuator in the X direction perpendicular to the optical axis, and in the Y-direction perpendicular to the optical axis and X axis (para. [0016])).
Figure 2 of Nagai teaches “a change in coupling efficiency with respect to the displacement in the direction of optical axis is more gradual than that with respect to the displacement in the direction perpendicular to the optical axis” (para. [0012]). Therefore, Nagai concludes “the module can be simplified if the direction of correcting the lens position is restricted to the direction perpendicular to the optical axis” (para. [0013]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Benjamin to include the teachings of Nagai by incorporating the actuator on the first intracavity lens of Benjamin. Doing so allows for correcting lens position in such a way to maximize coupling efficiency.
Regarding claim 15, Benjamin fails to teach the optical cavity of claim 14, further comprising a second translation stage that, when actuated, translates the second intracavity lens transversely to the optical axis.
However Nagai teaches a second translation stage that, when actuated, translates the second intracavity lens transversely to the optical axis (These two lenses can be driven for correction by the actuator in the X direction perpendicular to the optical axis, and in the Y-direction perpendicular to the optical axis and X axis (para. [0016])).
Figure 2 of Nagai teaches “a change in coupling efficiency with respect to the displacement in the direction of optical axis is more gradual than that with respect to the displacement in the direction perpendicular to the optical axis” (para. [0012]). Therefore, Nagai concludes “the module can be simplified if the direction of correcting the lens position is restricted to the direction perpendicular to the optical axis” (para. [0013]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Benjamin to include the teachings of Nagai by incorporating the actuator on the second intracavity lens of Benjamin. Doing so allows for correcting lens position in such a way to maximize coupling efficiency.
Claims 1, 20, and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaffe, Matthew. Atom interferometry in an optical cavity. Diss. University of California, Berkeley, 2018, hereinafter referred to as Jaffe, in view of Benjamin.
Regarding claim 1, Jaffe teaches an optical cavity (science cavity; Figure 3.2) comprising: a plurality of mirrors positioned to reflect light along a closed path (The science cavity is a half-symmetric resonator with one flat mirror and one curved mirror (see Fig. 3.2) (Section 3.2, para [0001])) (Fig. 3.2 below), first and second mirrors of the plurality of mirrors defining an optical axis therebetween (Fig. 3.2 below); wherein a mode of the optical cavity has a waist (The cavity parameters result in a 718 µm waist at 852 nm, the primary wavelength we use to interact with the atoms (section 3.2, para [0012])).
PNG
media_image7.png
480
728
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Jaffe fails to explicitly teach first and second intracavity lenses located along the optical axis.
However, Benjamin teaches first and second intracavity lenses located along the optical axis (two intra-cavity lenses 21, 22) (Fig. 10 above).
Both Jaffe and Benjamin teach methods of atom interferometry using optical cavities employing first and second mirrors forming an optical axis, and a mode of the optical cavity having a waist. Further, Jaffe discloses “[t]he cavity mode beam waist is 718 µm, set by the 10 m radius of curvature of the lower mirror of the science cavity. A larger radius of curvature gives a larger beam waist, but reduces the transverse mode spacing (see eq. 2.90), degrading spatial mode filtering. An attempt to address this trade-off using an intra-cavity lens has been made” (section 41, para. [0001]). Further, Benjamin explains “[t]he combination of a resonant optical cavity and an intra-cavity optical system makes it possible to obtain a compact, stable cavity” (pg. 7, line 44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Jaffe to incorporate the teachings of Benjamin by including intracavity lenses between the first and second mirror. Doing so improves the stability of the cavity and assists in improving spatial mode filtering.
Regarding claim 20, Jaffe teaches a method for cavity quantum electrodynamics, comprising confining one or more nonlinear emitters near the waist of the optical cavity of claim 1 (The atoms are loaded into the cavity mode by adiabatically ramping on the science laser with the PGC beams still on. Repump light into the TA is extinguished so that the trap light pumps the atoms into F = 3 (section 3.4, sub section “Raman sideband cooling”, para. [0001])).
Regarding claim 22, Jaffe teaches the method of claim 20, further comprising reading out the one or more nonlinear emitters using the optical cavity (In our experiment, we have demonstrated an interferometer that coherently holds the atoms in a spatially-separated superposition state for over 10 seconds before reading out interference (section 8, para. [0007])).
Regarding claim 23, Jaffe teaches the method of claim 20, further comprising entangling the one or more nonlinear emitters with a photon that is coupled into the optical cavity (We can now split the Raman beamsplitter into a two-part operation: (i) superpose the spin-state of the atom with a microwave π 2 pulse, and (ii) entangle the external momentum with the spin degree-of-freedom using an SDK π pulse (section 7.2, para. [0008])).
Regarding claim 24, Jaffe teaches the method of claim 20, further comprising driving the one or more nonlinear emitters to deterministically generating a single photon that is emitted into a mode of the optical cavity (Perhaps the most straightforward benefit of the cavity is the higher optical power afforded by resonant enhancement. For fixed Rabi frequency, higher available intensity allows lower single photon scattering by increasing the single-photon detuning ∆ (section 4.2, para. [0001])).
Regarding claim 25, Jaffe teaches the method of claim 24, wherein: the one or more nonlinear emitters comprises one or more atoms (Figure 3.12: Atoms after the launch. Populations trapped in each of the lattices described in eq. 3.2 are visible (Fig. 3.2 caption)); and said driving comprises driving cavity-vacuum-assisted Raman transitions of the one or more atoms between a first hyperfine ground state and a second hyperfine ground state (A Raman transition is a two-photon process that changes the hyperfine state of the atom and exchanges momentum with the light field (section 2.3, para. [0002])) (After all the vacuum assembly and bake, we got sufficiently lucky that we can drive Raman transitions (section 3.2, para. [0007])).
Regarding claim 26, Jaffe teaches the method of claim 20, wherein: the one or more nonlinear emitters comprises one or more atoms; and said confining comprises trapping the one or more atoms (Figure 3.12: Atoms after the launch. Populations trapped in each of the lattices described in eq. 3.2 are visible (Fig. 3.2 caption)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Stone, Mark, et al. "Optical mode conversion in coupled Fabry–Perot resonators." Optics Letters 46.1 (2020): 21-24. - Relevant to claims 1-2 and 9 for teachings of an optical Fabry-Perot cavity with a variable finesse.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICA J. EINHORN whose telephone number is (571)272-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571) 272-2293. 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.
/MICA JILLIAN EINHORN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights