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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 26 September 2024, 07 November 2024, and 25 February 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 13-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13: “tomographic imaging” in line 3 should be “the tomographic imaging” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language. (This applies to claims 14-18 as well).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 10-18 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.
Regarding claim 10, “the plurality of the probes” in line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis and is therefore unclear.
Claims 11-18 are rejected for their dependency on claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is unclear as it impossible to clearly understand the metes and bounds of the claim due to a lack of limiting language. Merely using the device is ambiguous and therefore the intentions of the claim is unclear.
Claims 13-18, which are dependent on claim 12, do not inherit the problems of claim 12 and are therefore NOT rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) solely for their dependency.
Regarding claim 16, “a plurality of the probes” in line 3 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 10, on which claim 16 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same plurality of the probes previously set forth or a different plurality of the probes? In light of the specification, this limitation is being interpreted as referring to the same plurality of the probes mentioned previously.
Regarding claim 17, “a plurality of the probes” in line 3 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 10, on which claim 17 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same plurality of the probes previously set forth or a different plurality of the probes? In light of the specification, this limitation is being interpreted as referring to the same plurality of the probes mentioned previously.
Regarding claim 18, “a sample” in line 2 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 1, on which claim 18 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same sample mentioned previously or a different sample? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same sample mentioned previously.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 10-12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong (USPGPub 20180372478 A1) in view of Ho (USPGPub 20220349701 A1), Mizuta et al. (USPGPub 20220218199 A1), and Cloud (U.S. Patent No. 6128082 A).
Regarding claim 1, Chong teaches an optical coherence tomography device comprising a lens (218) configured to direct light emitted from a light source (202) onto a sample (222) (see figure 2, lens 218 directing light towards sample 222 from light source 202), the optical coherence tomography device being configured to perform tomographic imaging of the sample (222) based on interference between sample light, which is reflected light from the sample (222), and reference light, which is reflected light from a reference surface (220) provided between the lens (218) and the sample (222) (see figure 2, reflective element 220 (i.e. reference surface); ¶30, The reflective element 220 is disposed between the second lens 218 and the sample 222…the reflective element 220 has a non-zero reflectivity such that a portion of the optical beam reflects off of a surface 242 of the reflective element 220 to generate a reference beam for the Fizeau-Type interferometer 204; and ¶32, a portion of the optical beam is transmitted (e.g., refracts) through the reflective element 220 to form a sample component beam of the Fizeau-type interferometer 204. The sample component beam then reflects off of a portion (e.g., a surface or an inner portion) of the sample 222 and is redirected back through the reflective element 220, second lens 218, scanner 216, and first lens 214 into the second optical fiber 212, and thereby guided to the optical element 210, which directs the reflected reference component and sample component beams (hereafter referred to as “the combined beam”) to a detector… the interference pattern includes information pertaining to various features of the sample 222, and may be used to generate an image of the sample 222), the sample light and the reference light each being to pass through the lens (218) (¶31, the reference component beam is directed via the second lens 218 and the scanner 216 back to the second optical fiber 212; and ¶32, The sample component beam then reflects off of a portion (e.g., a surface or an inner portion) of the sample 222 and is redirected back through the reflective element 220, second lens 218, scanner 216, and first lens 214 into the second optical fiber 212). However, Chong fails to explicitly teach wherein the lens is an objective lens configured to focus light; the light emitted from the light source and passed through the objective lens being to illuminate the sample at a wide angle, the reference surface including a light scatterer.
However, Ho teaches wherein the lens is an objective lens (10) configured to focus light (see figure 3A-3C, objective lens 10 focusing light onto sample 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chong to incorporate the teachings of Ho to include an objective lens due to their high magnification and resolution, as well as their aberration correction, providing clear and precise images of the sample. However, the combination fails to explicitly teach the light emitted from the light source and passed through the objective lens being to illuminate the sample at a wide angle, the reference surface including a light scatterer.
However, Mizuta teaches the light emitted from the light source and passed through the objective lens (130) being to illuminate the sample (12) at a wide angle (¶81, the objective lens 130 that has a large wide angle (e.g., a UWF (Ultra Wide Field) exceeding 100°) in order to observe the subject eye 12 in a wide field of view FOV).
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 combination of Chong and Ho to incorporate the teachings of Mizuta to include a wide angle lens in order to observe the subject/sample of a wide FOV. However, the combination fails to explicitly teach the reference surface including a light scatterer.
However, Cloud teaches the reference surface (20) including a light scatterer (col. 1, lines 10-13, This invention relates to interferometry, and more particularly to a speckle interferometry apparatus and method that utilizes a scattering reference plate that can incorporate phase shifting).
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 combination of Chong, Ho, and Mizuta to incorporate the teachings of Cloud to instead include a scattering reference surface as it allows contour maps of displacements and strains, both in-plane and out-of-plane can be constructed (Cloud, col. 1, lines 52-54).
Regarding claim 2, Chong as modified by Ho, Mizuta, and Cloud teaches the optical coherence tomography device according to claim 1, wherein the objective lens (Chong 218 | Ho 10 | Mizuta 130 | Cloud 40) is a short-focus lens or a wide-angle lens (Mizuta, ¶81, the objective lens 130 that has a large wide angle (e.g., a UWF (Ultra Wide Field) exceeding 100°) in order to observe the subject eye 12 in a wide field of view FOV).
Regarding claim 6, Chong as modified by Ho, Mizuta, and Cloud teaches the optical coherence tomography device according to claim 1, wherein the reference surface (Chong 220 | Ho 21 | Cloud 20) is a flat surface (Chong, ¶31, the surface 242 is substantially planar).
Regarding claim 7, Chong as modified by Ho, Mizuta, and Cloud teaches the optical coherence tomography device according to claim 1, further comprising a probe (Chong 206 | Ho C), wherein the objective lens (Chong 218 | Ho 10 | Mizuta 130 | Cloud 40) is provided in the probe (Chong 206 | Ho C) (Chong, see figure 2, combined arm 206 (i.e. probe) containing lens 218).
Regarding claim 10, Chong as modified by Ho and Cloud teaches the probe (Chong 206 | Ho C) comprising the optical system (Chong, see figure 2, combined arm 206 (i.e. probe)). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the optical system or the plurality of the optical systems is provided in a mechanically movable manner.
However, Mizuta teaches wherein the optical system or the plurality of the optical systems is provided in a mechanically movable manner (¶39, The imaging optical system 116A is moved in the X, Y, Z directions by an imaging optical system driving section (not illustrated), under the control of the CPU 16A. The aligning (positioning) of the imaging device 14 and the subject eye 12 may be carried out, for example, by moving not merely the imaging device 14, but the entire ophthalmic device 110 in the X, Y, Z directions).
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 combination of Chong, Ho, and Cloud to incorporate the teachings of Mizuta to provide moveable optical elements in order to scan a plurality of regions of the sample.
Regarding claim 11¸ Chong as modified by Ho, Mizuta, and Cloud teaches an optical coherence tomography system comprising: the optical coherence tomography device according to claim 10; and a moving mechanism configured to mechanically move the probe or the plurality of the probes of the optical coherence tomography device (Mizuta, ¶39, The imaging optical system 116A is moved in the X, Y, Z directions by an imaging optical system driving section (not illustrated), under the control of the CPU 16A. The aligning (positioning) of the imaging device 14 and the subject eye 12 may be carried out, for example, by moving not merely the imaging device 14, but the entire ophthalmic device 110 in the X, Y, Z directions).
Regarding claim 12, Chong as modified by Ho, Mizuta, and Cloud teaches an optical coherence tomography method comprising using the optical coherence tomography device according to the optical coherence tomography system according to claim 11 (Chong, ¶2, Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is an imaging technique. OCT imaging techniques are often used in a medical setting; and see remainder of ¶2 for further details).
Regarding claim 18, Chong as modified by Ho, Mizuta, and Cloud teaches an inspection method comprising: performing tomographic imaging of a sample by the optical coherence tomography method according to claim 12 to acquire image data (Chong, ¶2, Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is an imaging technique); and inspecting an internal condition of the sample (Chong 222 | Ho 3 | Mizuta 12 | Cloud 25) based on the image data (Chong, ¶32, The sample component beam then reflects off of a portion (e.g., a surface or an inner portion) of the sample 222 and is redirected back through the reflective element 220, second lens 218, scanner 216, and first lens 214 into the second optical fiber 212, and thereby guided to the optical element 210, which directs the reflected reference component and sample component beams (hereafter referred to as “the combined beam”) to a detector).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong (USPGPub 20180372478 A1) in view of Ho (USPGPub 20220349701 A1), Mizuta et al. (USPGPub 20220218199 A1), and Cloud (U.S. Patent No. 6128082 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hauger et al. (USPGPub 20160266369 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Chong as modified by Ho, Mizuta, and Cloud teaches the objective lens (Chong 218 | Ho 10 | Mizuta 130 | Cloud 40) (Ho, see figure 3A-3C, objective lens 10 focusing light onto sample 3). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the objective lens has a variable focal point.
However, Hauger teaches wherein the objective lens (5) has a variable focal point (¶54, it is also possible to use an objective lens system comprising a plurality of individual lenses, for instance a so-called varifocal objective, which can be used to vary the back focus of the operating microscope 1, i.e. the distance between the focal plane and the objective 5).
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 combination of Chong, Ho, Mizuta, and Cloud to incorporate the teachings of Hauger because, [b]y varying the back focus, it is possible to adapt an operating microscope 1 with varifocal objective to different working distances, without the position of the operating microscope 1 itself needing to be altered (Hauger, ¶54).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong (USPGPub 20180372478 A1) in view of Ho (USPGPub 20220349701 A1), Mizuta et al. (USPGPub 20220218199 A1), and Cloud (U.S. Patent No. 6128082 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vogler et al. (USPGPub 20130321822 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Chong as modified by Ho, Mizuta, and Cloud teaches wherein the reference surface (Chong 220 | Ho 21 | Cloud 20) is a light scatterer (Cloud, col. 1, lines 10-13, This invention relates to interferometry, and more particularly to a speckle interferometry apparatus and method that utilizes a scattering reference plate that can incorporate phase shifting). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the reference surface has a total light transmittance of 10 to 90% in a wavelength range from 400 to 1750 nm.
However, Vogler teaches wherein the reference surface (MR3) has a total light transmittance of 10 to 90% in a wavelength range from 400 to 1750 nm (¶86, an additional third reference arm mirror MR3, see FIG. 6, is provided, which is designed to be partially transmissive for wavelengths in the second wavelength range, by providing a transmission coefficient in the range of about 10% to 50%; and ¶68, a suitable second wavelength .lamda.2 is in the range from about 800 nm to about 1000 nm).
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 combination of Chong, Ho, Mizuta, and Cloud to incorporate the teachings of Vogler to have the transmittance of the reference surface be between 10% and 90% because a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions (MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Claims 8, 14-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong (USPGPub 20180372478 A1) in view of Ho (USPGPub 20220349701 A1), Mizuta et al. (USPGPub 20220218199 A1), and Cloud (U.S. Patent No. 6128082 A) as applied to claims 7 and 12 above, and further in view of Wolfgang et al. (USPGPub 20230082936 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Chong as modified by Ho, Mizuta, and Cloud teaches a probe (Chong, see figure 2, combined arm 206 (i.e. probe) containing lens 218). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the optical coherence tomography device includes a plurality of the probes.
However, Wolfgang teaches wherein the optical coherence tomography device includes a plurality of the probes (106) (see figure 5, plurality of probes 106).
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 combination of Chong, Ho, Mizuta, and Cloud to incorporate the teachings of Wolfgang to provide a plurality of probes in order to image a plurality of regions of a sample simultaneously.
Regarding claim 14, Chong as modified by Ho, Mizuta, and Cloud teaches a moving mechanism configured to mechanically move the probe or the plurality of the probes of the optical coherence tomography device (Mizuta, ¶39, The imaging optical system 116A is moved in the X, Y, Z directions by an imaging optical system driving section (not illustrated), under the control of the CPU 16A. The aligning (positioning) of the imaging device 14 and the subject eye 12 may be carried out, for example, by moving not merely the imaging device 14, but the entire ophthalmic device 110 in the X, Y, Z directions); and wherein the probe includes the objective lens (Chong 218 | Ho 10 | Mizuta 130 | Cloud 40) (Chong, see figure 2, combined arm 206 (i.e. probe) containing lens 218). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein tomographic imaging is performed while the probe is mechanically moved.
However, Wolfgang teaches wherein tomographic imaging is performed while the probe is mechanically moved (¶104, the illustrated apparatus 120 may comprise a motion mechanism 126 configured for moving the detection probe 106 and the manufactured composition 100 relative to each other…a co-extruded strand as a preform of compositions 100 rotates during the manufacturing process so that a single detection probe 106 may be sufficient for monitoring the composition 100 around a circumference; and see ¶¶44-45 for further details).
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 combination of Chong, Ho, Mizuta, and Cloud to incorporate the teachings of Wolfgang to include sensing while the probes are in motion because [t]he advantage of the provision of a motion mechanism for establishing a mutual motion between manufactured composition or a preform thereof (for instance an endless extruded strand) and one or more probes has the advantage that this allows to determine the material property along the entire perimeter while keeping the number of implemented detection probes very small (Wolfgang, ¶44).
Regarding claim 15, Chong as modified by Ho, Mizuta, and Cloud teaches a moving mechanism configured to mechanically move the probe or the plurality of the probes of the optical coherence tomography device (Mizuta, ¶39, The imaging optical system 116A is moved in the X, Y, Z directions by an imaging optical system driving section (not illustrated), under the control of the CPU 16A. The aligning (positioning) of the imaging device 14 and the subject eye 12 may be carried out, for example, by moving not merely the imaging device 14, but the entire ophthalmic device 110 in the X, Y, Z directions). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein tomographic imaging is performed while the sample is mechanically moved.
However, Wolfgang teaches wherein tomographic imaging is performed while the sample is mechanically moved (¶104, the illustrated apparatus 120 may comprise a motion mechanism 126 configured for moving the detection probe 106 and the manufactured composition 100 relative to each other…a co-extruded strand as a preform of compositions 100 rotates during the manufacturing process so that a single detection probe 106 may be sufficient for monitoring the composition 100 around a circumference; and see ¶¶44-45 for further details).
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 combination of Chong, Ho, Mizuta, and Cloud to incorporate the teachings of Wolfgang to include sensing while the sample is in motion because [t]he advantage of the provision of a motion mechanism for establishing a mutual motion between manufactured composition or a preform thereof (for instance an endless extruded strand) and one or more probes has the advantage that this allows to determine the material property along the entire perimeter while keeping the number of implemented detection probes very small (Wolfgang, ¶44).
Regarding claim 17, Chong as modified by Ho, Mizuta, and Cloud teaches a moving mechanism configured to mechanically move the probe or the plurality of the probes of the optical coherence tomography device (Mizuta, ¶39, The imaging optical system 116A is moved in the X, Y, Z directions by an imaging optical system driving section (not illustrated), under the control of the CPU 16A. The aligning (positioning) of the imaging device 14 and the subject eye 12 may be carried out, for example, by moving not merely the imaging device 14, but the entire ophthalmic device 110 in the X, Y, Z directions); and wherein the probe includes the objective lens (Chong 218 | Ho 10 | Mizuta 130 | Cloud 40) (Chong, see figure 2, combined arm 206 (i.e. probe) containing lens 218). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of the probes is used to perform tomographic imaging in a plurality of different directions.
However, Wolfgang teaches wherein the plurality of the probes (106) is used to perform tomographic imaging in a plurality of different directions (see figure 5, plurality of probes 106 disposed along different directions).
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 combination of Chong, Ho, Mizuta, and Cloud to incorporate the teachings of Wolfgang to include sensing the object from a plurality of directions in order to image a plurality of regions of a sample simultaneously.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong (USPGPub 20180372478 A1) in view of Ho (USPGPub 20220349701 A1), Mizuta et al. (USPGPub 20220218199 A1), and Cloud (U.S. Patent No. 6128082 A) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Carrasco-Zevallos et al. (USPGPub 20180296087 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Chong as modified by Ho, Mizuta, and Cloud teaches the objective lens (Chong 218 | Ho 10 | Mizuta 130 | Cloud 40) and the sample (Chong 222 | Ho 3 | Mizuta 12 | Cloud 25). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein tomographic imaging is performed with the objective lens and the sample being apart at a distance of 2 cm or longer and shorter than 2 m.
However, Carrasco-Zevallos teaches wherein tomographic imaging is performed with the objective lens and the sample being apart at a distance of 2 cm or longer and shorter than 2 m (¶22, The configuration shown in FIG. 1 has a working distance of about 35 centimeters).
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 combination of Chong, Ho, Mizuta, and Cloud to incorporate the teachings of Carrasco-Zevallos to have the distance between the objective lens and the object be within the aforementioned range such that subjects can be situated at a comfortable distance away during imaging (Carrasco-Zevallos, ¶22).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the optical coherence tomography device according to claim 1 as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein the light scatterer has a haze value of 5 to 95% in a wavelength range from 400 to 1750 nm.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the optical coherence tomography device according to claims 8, 7, and 1 as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein the plurality of the probes is configured to provide sets of information based on respective light beams of different frequencies.
Claim 16 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.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the optical coherence tomography method according to claims 12, 11, 10, 7, and 1 as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein a plurality of the probes each of which includes the objective lens is used to perform tomographic imaging with a plurality of light beams of different frequencies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Margraf et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8970830 B2): Margraf teaches determining the haze of a transparent object.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN R GARBER whose telephone number is (571)272-4663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1730.
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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at (571)272-2328. 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.
/ERIN R GARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2878