DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 3/16/2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 4 and 13 have been cancelled, claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 have been amended. Currently claims 1-3, 5-12 and 14-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 9-10, 17 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the phrases:
“wherein one or more of the first and second waveguides having a refracting surface array disposed within the body of the waveguide between the first and second ends, the refracting surface array being configured to shape light received from the LED light source to form the light pattern at the second end of the waveguide” on lines 14-17, should be changed to -- wherein one or more of the first and second waveguides having a refracting surface array disposed within the body of the first and/or second waveguide between the first and second ends, the refracting surface array being configured to shape light received from the LED light source to form the light pattern at the second end of the first and/or second waveguide -- to place the claim in better form for allowance.
“one projection lens disposed adjacent the second ends of the waveguides” on lines 27-28, should be changed to -- one projection lens disposed adjacent the second ends of the first, second and third waveguides – to place the claim in better form for allowance.
In claim 3, the phrases:
“wherein one or more of the first and second waveguides having a refracting surface array disposed within the body of the waveguide between the first and second ends, the refracting surface array being configured to shape light received from the LED light source to form the light pattern at the second end of the waveguide” on lines 13-16, should be changed to -- wherein one or more of the first and second waveguides having a refracting surface array disposed within the body of the first and/or second waveguide between the first and second ends, the refracting surface array being configured to shape light received from the LED light source to form the light pattern at the second end of the first and/or second waveguide -- to place the claim in better form for allowance.
“one projection lens disposed adjacent the second ends of the waveguides” on lines 24-25, should be changed to -- one projection lens disposed adjacent the second ends of the first, second and third waveguides – to place the claim in better form for allowance.
In claim 9, the phrase “one projection lens disposed adjacent the second ends of the waveguides” on lines 24-25, should be changed to -- one projection lens disposed adjacent the second ends of the first, second and third waveguides –.
In claim 10, the phrase “wherein one or more of the first and second waveguides having a refracting surface array disposed within the body of the waveguide between the first and second ends, the refracting surface array being configured to shape light received from the LED light source to form the light pattern at the second end of the waveguide”, should be changed to -- wherein one or more of the first and second waveguides having a refracting surface array disposed within the body of the first and/or second waveguide between the first and second ends, the refracting surface array being configured to shape light received from the LED light source to form the light pattern at the second end of the first and/or second waveguide -- to place the claim in better form for allowance.
In claim 17, the phrases:
“wherein one or more of the first and second waveguides having a refracting surface array disposed within the body of the waveguide between the first and second ends, the refracting surface array being configured to shape light received from the LED light source to form the light pattern at the second end of the waveguide” on lines 12-15, should be changed to -- wherein one or more of the first and second waveguides having a refracting surface array disposed within the body of the first and/or second waveguide between the first and second ends, the refracting surface array being configured to shape light received from the LED light source to form the light pattern at the second end of the first and/or second waveguide -- to place the claim in better form for allowance.
“one projection lens disposed adjacent the second ends of the waveguides” on lines 26-26, should be changed to -- one projection lens disposed adjacent the second ends of the first, second and third waveguides – to place the claim in better form for allowance.
In claim 19, the phrase “one projection lens disposed adjacent the second ends of the waveguides” on lines 21-22, should be changed to -- one projection lens disposed adjacent the second ends of the first, second and third waveguides –.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefanov et al. (DE 102011085315 A1, hereinafter, “Stefanov”, previously cited by the Examiner) in view of Serizawa et al. (US 4733335 A, hereinafter, “Serizawa”, previously cited by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 9, Stefanov teaches a lighting system (Headlamp projection module, see figures 3-6) mounted to a vehicle (motor vehicle, see abstract) comprising:
an LED light source (light source 11’, see fig 5) adapted to be mounted to a vehicle (motor vehicle), the LED light source (11’) configured to emit a light (as expected from a light source);
a first waveguide (lower primary optic 12’, see fig 5) defining oppositely facing first and second ends (light entry surface 18’ and light exit surface 19’, see fig 5) and a body (body of 12’s) therebetween, wherein the first waveguide (lower 12’) is configured to receive light emitted from the LED light source (11’) at the first end (18’) and output a first light pattern (output of lower 12’) at the second end (19’);
a second waveguide (middle 12’) defining oppositely facing first and second ends (18’ and 19’) and a body (body of 12’s) therebetween, wherein the second waveguide (middle 12’) is configured to receive light emitted from the at least one LED light source (11’) at the first end (18’) and output a second light pattern (output of middle 12) at the second end (19’), wherein the second light pattern (output of 12’) that is emitted from the second end (19’) of the second waveguide (middle 12’) is differently configured (necessarily occurring as the lower and middle light guides are differently shaped) relative to the first light pattern (output of lower 12’) that is emitted by the second end (19’) of the first waveguide (lower 12’);
a third waveguide (upper 12’) defining oppositely facing first and second ends (18’ and 19’) and a body (body of 12’s) therebetween, wherein the third waveguide (upper 12’) is configured to receive light emitted from the LED light source (11’) at the first end (18’) and output a third light pattern (output of upper 12’) at the second end (19’), wherein the third light pattern (output of upper 12’) that is emitted from the second end (19’) of the third waveguide (upper 12’) is differently (necessarily occurring as the lower, middle and upper light guides are differently shaped) configured related to both the first light pattern (output of lower 12’) that is emitted by the second end (19’) of the first waveguide (lower 12’) and the second light pattern (output of middle 12’) that is emitted by the second end (19’) of the second waveguide (middle 12’);
wherein the first end (18’) of each of the first, second and third waveguide (lower, middle and upper 12’s) is mounted to a common mounting member (17’) that includes the LED light source (11’); and
at least one projection lens (secondary optics 14’, see fig 3) disposed adjacent the second end (19’) of the waveguides (lower, middle and upper 12’) configured to receive the light pattern (outputs from lower, middle and upper 12’) from the first, second and third waveguide (lower, middle and upper 12’), and to project the same in front of the vehicle (motor vehicle);
Stefanov does not explicitly teach an elevated location above an implement associated with the vehicle; wherein the elevated location of the lighting system enables light patterns emitted by the first, second and third waveguide to illuminate areas in front of the implement.
Serizawa teaches lighting system (high-mount stop lamp 201, see figure 5);
an elevated location (see position of 201 in fig 5) above an implement (bumper) associated with the vehicle (202); wherein the elevated location (location above bumper) of the lighting system (202) enables light patterns (light from diode segregating members 208) emitted by the first, second and third waveguide (125s) to illuminate areas in front of the implement (bumper).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the projection lens as taught by Seizawa into the teachings of Stefanov in order to further enhance light diffusion and to protect the inner components of device from damage. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to expand the service life of the device.
Regarding claim 16, Stefanov teaches wherein the first waveguide (lower 12’) is oriented at a first angle (see angle between lower 12’ and 17’, approximately 90 degrees, as seen in fig 5) relative to the common mounting member (17’),
the second waveguide (middle 12’) is mounted to the common mounting member (17’) above the first waveguide (lower 12’) at its first end (18’) and rests (see 19’ of middle 12’ resting on lower 12’) on the first waveguide (lower 12’) at its second end (19’), and
the third waveguide (upper 12’) is mounted to the common mounting member (17’) above the second waveguide (middle 12’) at its first end (18’) and rests (see 19’ of upper 12’ resting on middle 12’) on the second waveguide (middle 12’) at its second end (19’).
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefanov et al. (DE 102011085315 A1, hereinafter, “Stefanov”, previously cited by the Examiner) in view of Serizawa et al. (US 4733335 A, hereinafter, “Serizawa”, previously cited by the Examiner), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Gasquet et al. (EP 2012056 A1, hereinafter, “Gasquet”, previously cited by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 14, Stefanov teaches wherein each of the first, second and third waveguide (lower, middle and upper 12’s) is mounted on the common mounting member (17’); but
Stefanov teaches wherein each of the first, second and third waveguide is secured to the common mounting member via an aperture and opening mounting arrangement interposed between the common mounting member and the respective waveguide.
Gasquet teaches a lighting system (10) for a vehicle (vehicle, see ¶ 1 of description), having an LED light source (14a, 14b) emitting light into a first waveguide (lower 12, see fig 1), a second waveguide (see middle 12 in fig 1) and a third waveguide (upper 12, see fig 1); wherein the first end (left end of 12, see fig 1) of each of the first, second and third waveguide (lower, middle and upper 12s, see fig 1) is mounted to a common mounting member (18) that includes the LED light source (14a, 14b);
wherein each of the first, second and third waveguide (lower, middle and upper 12s, see fig 1) is secured to the common mounting member (18) via an aperture (see openings of 18 for axial lugs 58) and opening mounting arrangement (see openings between 58s) interposed between the common mounting member (18) and the respective waveguide (lower, middle and upper 12s, see fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the opening mounting arrangement as taught by Gasquet into the teachings of Stefanov in order to further enhance positioning of the waveguides with respect to the light sources. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to maximize light input into the waveguides.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefanov et al. (DE 102011085315 A1, hereinafter, “Stefanov”, previously cited by the Examiner) in view of Serizawa et al. (US 4733335 A, hereinafter, “Serizawa”, previously cited by the Examiner) and Gasquet et al. (EP 2012056 A1, hereinafter, “Gasquet”, previously cited by the Examiner) as applied to claims 9 and 14 above, and further in view of Li et al. (CN 1753192 A, hereinafter, “Li”, previously cited by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 15, Stefanov as modified by Gasquet does not explicitly teach wherein the aperture and opening mounting arrangements of each of the first, second and third waveguides are differently configured relative to each other.
Li teaches a lighting system (LED modular device 1, see figures 1-3) having a plurality of waveguides (light guide 25) mounted on a common support (base 11);
wherein the aperture (see apertures of 11) and opening mounting arrangements (see mounting positions for each 25) of each of the first, second and third waveguides (upper, middle left and lower 25s) are differently configured (as they form a triangle, as seen in fig 3) relative to each other (see fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to configure the waveguides as taught by Li into the teachings of Stefanov as modified by Gasquet since the applicant has not disclosed that the configuration of waveguides solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the configuration of Li. In this case, selecting a given configuration would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application, such as accommodating a plurality of waveguides in differently shaped supports.
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefanov et al. (DE 102011085315 A1, hereinafter, “Stefanov”, previously cited by the Examiner) in view of Serizawa et al. (US 4733335 A, hereinafter, “Serizawa”, previously cited by the Examiner) and Gasquet et al. (EP 2012056 A1, hereinafter, “Gasquet”, previously cited by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 19, Stefanov teaches lighting system mounted to a vehicle comprising:
an LED light source (11’) adapted to be mounted to a vehicle, the LED light source (11’) configured to emit a light (as expected from a light source);
a first waveguide (lower 12’) defining oppositely facing first and second ends (18’ and 19’) and a body (body of 12’s) therebetween, wherein the first waveguide (lower 12’) is configured to receive light emitted from the LED light source (11’) at the first end (18’) and output a first light pattern at the second end (19’);
a second waveguide (middle 12’) defining oppositely facing first and second ends (18’ and 19’) and a body (body of 12’s) therebetween, wherein the second waveguide (middle 12’) is configured to receive light emitted from the at least one LED light source (11’) at the first end (18’) and output a second light pattern at the second end (19’);
a third waveguide (upper 12’) defining oppositely facing first and second ends (18’ and 19’) and a body (body of 12’s) therebetween, wherein the third waveguide (upper 12’) is configured to receive light emitted from the LED light source (11’) at the first end (18’) and output a third light pattern at the second end (19’);
wherein the first end (18’) of each of the first, second and third waveguide (lower, middle and upper 12’s) is mounted to a common mounting member (17’) that includes the LED light source (11’); and
at least one projection lens (14’) disposed adjacent the second end (19’) of the waveguides configured to receive the light patterns from the first, second and third waveguide (lower, middle and upper 12’s) and to project the same in front (as expected from headlights) of the vehicle (motor vehicle);
Stefanov does not explicitly teach an elevated location above an implement associated with the vehicle; wherein the elevated location of the lighting system enables light patterns emitted by the first, second and third waveguide to illuminate areas in front of the implement.
Serizawa teaches lighting system (high-mount stop lamp 201, see figure 5);
an elevated location (see position of 201 in fig 5) above an implement (bumper) associated with the vehicle (202); wherein the elevated location (location above bumper) of the lighting system (202) enables light patterns (light from diode segregating members 208) emitted by the first, second and third waveguide (125s) to illuminate areas in front of the implement (bumper).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the projection lens as taught by Seizawa into the teachings of Stefanov in order to further enhance light diffusion and to protect the inner components of device from damage. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to expand the service life of the device.
Stefanov as modified by Serizawa does not explicitly teach wherein each of the first, second and third waveguide is secured to the common mounting member via an aperture and opening mounting arrangement interposed between the common mounting member and the respective waveguide.
Gasquet teaches a lighting system (10) for a vehicle (vehicle, see ¶ 1 of description), having an LED light source (14a, 14b) emitting light into a first waveguide (lower 12, see fig 1), a second waveguide (see middle 12 in fig 1) and a third waveguide (upper 12, see fig 1); wherein the first end (left end of 12, see fig 1) of each of the first, second and third waveguide (lower, middle and upper 12s, see fig 1) is mounted to a common mounting member (18) that includes the LED light source (14a, 14b);
wherein each of the first, second and third waveguide (lower, middle and upper 12s, see fig 1) is secured to the common mounting member (18) via an aperture (see openings of 18 for axial lugs 58) and opening mounting arrangement (see openings between 58s) interposed between the common mounting member (18) and the respective waveguide (lower, middle and upper 12s, see fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the opening mounting arrangement as taught by Stefanov as modified by Serizawa into the teachings of Stefanov in order to further enhance positioning of the waveguides with respect to the light sources. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to maximize light input into the waveguides.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefanov et al. (DE 102011085315 A1, hereinafter, “Stefanov”, previously cited by the Examiner) in view of Serizawa et al. (US 4733335 A, hereinafter, “Serizawa”, previously cited by the Examiner) and Gasquet et al. (EP 2012056 A1, hereinafter, “Gasquet”, previously cited by the Examiner), as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Li et al. (CN 1753192 A, hereinafter, “Li”, previously cited by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 20, Stefanov as modified by Gasquet does not explicitly teach wherein the aperture and opening mounting arrangements of each of the first, second and third waveguides are differently configured relative to each other.
Li teaches a lighting system (LED modular device 1, see figures 1-3) having a plurality of waveguides (light guide 25) mounted on a common support (base 11);
wherein the aperture (see apertures of 11) and opening mounting arrangements (see mounting positions for each 25) of each of the first, second and third waveguides (upper, middle left and lower 25s) are differently configured (as they form a triangle, as seen in fig 3) relative to each other (see fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to configure the waveguides as taught by Li into the teachings of Stefanov as modified by Gasquet since the applicant has not disclosed that the configuration of waveguides solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the configuration of Li. In this case, selecting a given configuration would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application, such as accommodating a plurality of waveguides in differently shaped supports.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 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 claims 10-12, although Stefanov teaches the lighting system, as described in claim 9 above, the prior art the prior art of the record fails to teach wherein one or more of the first and second waveguides includes a refracting surface array disposed within the body of the waveguide between the first and second ends, the refracting surface array being configured to shape light received from the LED light source to form the light pattern at the second end of the waveguide; and
wherein the third waveguide has a refracting surface array disposed within the body of the third waveguide between the first and second ends, the refracting surface array being configured to shape the light received from the LED light source to form the third light pattern at the second end of the third waveguide; and
wherein the third waveguide defines a solid body, devoid of any openings therein, between the first and second ends.
Claims 1-3, 5-8 and 17-18 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With regard to claim 1, while lighting systems for a vehicle, including an LED light source adapted to be mounted to a vehicle, the LED light source configured to emit a light; a first waveguide defining oppositely facing first and second ends and a body therebetween, wherein the first waveguide is configured to receive light emitted from the LED light source at the first end and output a first light pattern at the second end; a second waveguide defining oppositely facing first and second ends and a body therebetween, wherein the second waveguide is configured to receive light emitted from the LED light source at the first end and output a second light pattern at the second end, wherein the second light pattern that is emitted from the second end of the second waveguide is differently configured relative to the first light pattern that is emitted by the second end of the first waveguide; a third waveguide defining oppositely facing first and second ends and a body therebetween, wherein the third waveguide is configured to receive light emitted from the LED light source at the first end and output a third light pattern at the second end, wherein the third light pattern that is emitted from the second end of the third waveguide is differently configured related to both the first light pattern that is emitted by the second end of the first waveguide and the second light pattern that is emitted by the second end of the second waveguide; wherein the first end of each of the first, second and third waveguides is mounted to a common mounting member that includes the LED light source; and at least one projection lens disposed adjacent the second ends of the waveguides configured to receive the light patterns from the first, second and third waveguides, and to project the same in front of the vehicle, are old and well known in the illumination art (as evidenced by the Prior Art already made of record), no prior art was found teaching:
The lighting system, as disclosed in claim 1 above, wherein one or more of the first and second waveguides having a refracting surface array disposed within the body of the waveguide between the first and second ends, the refracting surface array being configured to shape light received from the LED light source to form the light pattern at the second end of the waveguide.
Claims 2 and 5-8 are allowed for being dependent on the allowed claim 1.
With regard to claim 3, while lighting systems for a vehicle, having an LED light source adapted to be mounted to a vehicle, the LED light source configured to emit a light; a first waveguide defining oppositely facing first and second ends and a body therebetween, wherein the first waveguide is configured to receive light emitted from the LED light source at the first end and output a first light pattern at the second end; a second waveguide defining oppositely facing first and second ends and a body therebetween, wherein the second waveguide is configured to receive light emitted from the LED light source at the first end and output a second light pattern at the second end; a third waveguide defining oppositely facing first and second ends and a body therebetween, wherein the third waveguide is configured to receive light emitted from the LED light source at the first end and output a third light pattern at the second end, wherein the third waveguide defines a solid body, devoid of any openings therein, between the first and second ends; wherein the first end of each of the first, second and third waveguides is mounted to a common mounting member that includes the LED light source; and at least one projection lens disposed adjacent the second ends of the waveguides configured to receive the light patterns from the first, second and third waveguides, and to project the same in front of the vehicle, are old and well known in the illumination art (as evidenced by the Prior Art already made of record), no prior art was found teaching:
The lighting system, as disclosed in claim 3 above, wherein one or more of the first and second waveguides having a refracting surface array disposed within the body of the waveguide between the first and second ends, the refracting surface array being configured to shape light received from the LED light source to form the light pattern at the second end of the waveguide.
With regard to claim 17, while lighting systems for vehicle, comprising: an LED light source adapted to be mounted to a vehicle, the LED light source configured to emit a light; a first waveguide defining oppositely facing first and second ends and a body therebetween, wherein the first waveguide is configured to receive light emitted from the LED light source at the first end and output a first light pattern at the second end; a second waveguide defining oppositely facing first and second ends and a body therebetween, wherein the second waveguide is configured to receive light emitted from the LED light source at the first end and output a second light pattern at the second end; a third waveguide defining oppositely facing first and second ends and a body therebetween, wherein the third waveguide is configured to receive light emitted from the LED light source at the first end and output a third light pattern at the second end; wherein the first end of each of the first, second and third waveguides is mounted to a common mounting member via an aperture and opening mounting arrangement interposed between the common mounting member and the respective waveguide, wherein the common mounting member includes the LED light source and at least one projection lens disposed adjacent the second ends of the waveguides configured to receive the light patterns from the first, second and third waveguides, and to project the same in front of the vehicle, are old and well known in the illumination art (as evidenced by the Prior Art already made of record), no prior art was found teaching:
The lighting system, as disclosed in claim 17 above, wherein one or more of the first and second waveguides having a refracting surface array disposed within the body of the waveguide between the first and second ends, the refracting surface array being configured to shape light received from the LED light source to form the light pattern at the second end of the waveguide.
Claim 18 is allowed for being dependent on the allowed claim 17.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 5-12 and 14-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references in the current office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stefanov et al. (DE 102017112971 A1) discloses a lighting system having a plurality of lightguides, wherein each light guide is configured differently to emit a portion of the overall light.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR ROJAS CADIMA whose telephone number is (571)272-8007. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-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, Abdulmajeed Aziz can be reached at 571-270-5046. 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.
/OMAR ROJAS CADIMA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights