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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 03/18/2025.
Claims 16-35 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/18/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 16-19 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binzer (US 20140225766 A1), hereinafter Binzer, in view of Spielmann (US 20210135373 A1), hereinafter Spielmann.
Regarding claim 16, Binzer, as shown below, discloses a radar device comprising (See at least [0032] Fig. 1, “The radar sensor shown in FIG. 1 has an antenna system 10”):
a lensed scanning-array unit, the lensed scanning-array unit comprising (See at least Fig. 1 Items 12, 14, [0032] “radar lens 14, in the form of a cumulative lens, is situated at a distance upstream from antenna elements 12”):
an array of antennas each having a respective feed with an associated phase centre on a first major surface of the (See at least Fig. 1, [0032] “Antenna elements 12 are situated next to one another in series in the horizontal direction”, [0033] “Antenna elements 12 are connected to feed lines 4, 1, 2, 3, 4, 1 from left to right”); and
a lens arranged over the (See at least Fig. 5, [0052] “the individual beams may be focused more strongly in the case of the radar sensor according to the present invention, so that main lobes 16, 18 may have a thinner shape than in the case of a conventional radar sensor.”),
wherein the antenna feed phase centres are arranged above a focal plane of the lens. (See at least Fig. 5, Items F, d, [0021] “The antenna elements maybe situated outside of a focal plane (image plane) of the radar lens.”)
Binzer does not explicitly disclose a semiconductor package comprising: a radio frequency, RF, integrated circuit, IC, configured to operate with the array of antennas as one of a scanning-array transmitter and a scanning-array receiver. However, Spielmann, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
a semiconductor package comprising (See at least Fig. 1, item 56, [0108] “The signals may also be directly transmitted to the receiver circuitry in the receiver IC 56 containing integrated active analog devices such as low-noise amplifiers, electronic mixers or analog-to-digital converters (ADCs) or other semiconductor devices”):
a radio frequency, RF, integrated circuit, IC, configured to operate with the array of antennas as one of a scanning-array transmitter and a scanning-array receiver (See at least Fig. 1, item 56, [0108] “The signals may also be directly transmitted to the receiver circuitry in the receiver IC 56 containing integrated active analog devices such as low-noise amplifiers, electronic mixers or analog-to-digital converters (ADCs) or other semiconductor devices”); and
Furthermore, 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 radar system disclosed by Binzer with the circuitry system disclosed by Spielmann. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously achieve a hardware configuration allowing for improved resolution with reduce interference (See at least [0056] “These embodiments provide the benefits of MIMO radar configurations regarding enlarged size of virtual aperture, improved spatial resolution and less sensitivity to interference signals, as is well known in the art”).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Binzer and Spielmann, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 16. Binzer does not disclose the lens is a one of elliptical and hyper-hemispherical. However, Spielmann further discloses
the lens is a one of elliptical and hyper-hemispherical (See at least Fig. 4, [0034] “The first radar lens and the second radar lens may comprise surfaces that are a portion of a sphere (spherical).” Figure 4 shows a hyper-hemispherical configuration).
Furthermore, 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 radar system disclosed by Binzer with the lens system disclosed by Spielmann. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously achieve a hardware configuration allowing for improved resolution with reduce interference (See at least [0056] “These embodiments provide the benefits of MIMO radar configurations regarding enlarged size of virtual aperture, improved spatial resolution and less sensitivity to interference signals, as is well known in the art”).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Binzer and Spielmann, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 17. Binzer does not disclose the lens is of a plastics material. However, Spielmann further discloses
the lens is of a plastics material (See at least [0087] “the first radar lens 36 could, for instance, be based on a plastic container structure”).
Furthermore, 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 radar system disclosed by Binzer with the lens system disclosed by Spielmann. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously achieve a hardware configuration allowing for improved resolution with reduce interference (See at least [0056] “These embodiments provide the benefits of MIMO radar configurations regarding enlarged size of virtual aperture, improved spatial resolution and less sensitivity to interference signals, as is well known in the art”).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Binzer and Spielmann, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 16. Binzer further discloses
the antennas feed phase centres are in a plane which is within a range between one-half and one-and-a half times an operational wavelength of the antennas in a material of the lens above the focal plane of the lens (See at least [0002] “These radar sensors typically work with a frequency of 24 GHz or 77 GHz”, [0032] “antenna elements 12 are situated at a distance d of 3 mm to 4 mm upstream from focal plane F” A wavelength of 4mm corresponds to a frequency of 75 GHZ, therefore the phase centres may approximately one operational wavelength distance from the focal plane of the lens).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Binzer and Spielmann, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 16. Binzer further discloses
each feed is one of an output feed and an input feed (See at least [0032] “six antenna elements 12, which may also be referred to as primary radiators”, [0033] “Antenna elements 12 are connected to feed lines 4, 1, 2, 3, 4, 1 from left to right” See also [0034]).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Binzer and Spielmann, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 16. Binzer further discloses
the radar device comprises one of a transmitter and a receiver (See at least [0034] “A radar signal, which is transmitted by the antenna elements”).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Binzer and Spielmann, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 16. Binzer further discloses
the radar device is a transceiver (See at least [0020] “The antenna elements may be transmitting and receiving antenna elements”).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Binzer and Spielmann, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 16 and 24. Binzer does not disclose the array of antennas is a first array of antennas each having a respective feed on a first major surface of the semiconductor package and spaced apart along a first axis, and further comprising a second array of antennas each having a respective feed on the first major surface of the semiconductor package and spaced apart along a second axis, wherein the second axis is parallel to the first axis. However, Spielmann further discloses
the array of antennas is a first array of antennas each having a respective feed on a first major surface of the semiconductor package and spaced apart along a first axis, and further comprising a second array of antennas each having a respective feed on the first major surface of the semiconductor package and spaced apart along a second axis, wherein the second axis is parallel to the first axis (See at least Figs. 1, 16, [0117] “Each rectangular slot electromagnetically couples to a microstrip line 66 feed”, [0108] “he signals may also be directly transmitted to the receiver circuitry in the receiver IC 56 containing integrated active analog devices such as low-noise amplifiers, electronic mixers or analog-to-digital converters (ADCs) or other semiconductor devices” Spielmann discloses a two dimensional array of antennas, each having corresponding feeds).
Furthermore, 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 radar system disclosed by Binzer with the lens system disclosed by Spielmann. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously achieve a hardware configuration allowing for improved resolution with reduce interference (See at least [0056] “These embodiments provide the benefits of MIMO radar configurations regarding enlarged size of virtual aperture, improved spatial resolution and less sensitivity to interference signals, as is well known in the art”).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binzer, in view of Spielmann, in further view of Rieder (US 20220359328 A1), hereinafter Rieder.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Binzer and Spielmann, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 16. The combination of Binzer and Spielmann does not explicitly disclose a diameter of the lens is at least 3 times larger than an operational wavelength of the antennas. However, Rieder, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
a diameter of the lens is at least 3 times larger than an operational wavelength of the antennas (See at least [0037] “The diameter of the lens is about 10 times the (center) wavelength of the radiated and/or received radar waves.”).
Furthermore, 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 radar system disclosed by Binzer with the circuitry system disclosed by Spielmann with the lens system disclosed by Rieder. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase detection range (See at least [0002] “an improved device that increases a detection range without increasing the radar antenna size may be desirable”).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binzer, in view of Spielmann, in further view of Focke (US 20100231436 A1), hereinafter Focke.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Binzer and Spielmann, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 16 The combination of Binzer and Spielmann does not explicitly disclose the scanning-array unit is configured to scan radiation over an angular range of at least plus and minus 300 to a normal to the focal plane of the lens. However, Focke, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the scanning-array unit is configured to scan radiation over an angular range of at least plus and minus 300 to a normal to the focal plane of the lens (See at least [0029] “the transmitted signal (or similarly the sensitivity for the received signal) is plotted with respect to azimuth angle .alpha..sub.Y in the range of .+-.30.degree.”).
Furthermore, 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 radar system disclosed by Binzer with the circuitry system disclosed by Spielmann with the lens system disclosed by Focke. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously mitigate interference (See at least [0030] “Side lobes are well suppressed, and therefore the radar sensor is largely insensitive to interfering reflections from the roadway surface”).
Claim 26-28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binzer, in view of Spielmann, in further view of Lopez-Tonazzi (US 20240283146 A1), hereinafter Lopez-Tonazzi.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Binzer and Spielmann, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 16. Binzer does not explicitly disclose semiconductor package. However, Spielmann, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
semiconductor package (See at least Fig. 1, item 56, [0108] “The signals may also be directly transmitted to the receiver circuitry in the receiver IC 56 containing integrated active analog devices such as low-noise amplifiers, electronic mixers or analog-to-digital converters (ADCs) or other semiconductor devices”):
Furthermore, 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 radar system disclosed by Binzer with the circuitry system disclosed by Spielmann. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously achieve a hardware configuration allowing for improved resolution with reduce interference (See at least [0056] “These embodiments provide the benefits of MIMO radar configurations regarding enlarged size of virtual aperture, improved spatial resolution and less sensitivity to interference signals, as is well known in the art”).
The combination of Binzer and Spielmann does not explicitly disclose a dielectric interposer between the semiconductor package and the lens. However, Lopez-Tonazzi, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
a dielectric interposer between the (See at least Fig. 2B, [0038] “The inflatable spherical reflector 140 may also include one or more dielectric support curtains to keep the spherical shape.”, “supporting bars 221 and 222 may be made of metal or preferably of a material which is transparent to radio frequency (RF). Such a material may include, but not limited to, PTFE (Teflon), Plexiglass, Polyethylene, Polycarbonate and conjugated polymers in general.”).
Furthermore, 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 radar system disclosed by Binzer with the layer system disclosed by Spielmann with the lens system disclosed by Lopez-Tonazzi. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve performance of reflector antennas (See at least [0008] “a spherical reflector antenna, which substantially improves the performance of related spherical reflector antennas”).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Binzer and Spielmann, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 16. The combination of Binzer and Spielmann does not explicitly disclose a reflective material configured to reflect radiation to or from the array of antennas respectively from or to an upper surface of the lens. However, Lopez-Tonazzi, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
a reflective material configured to reflect radiation to or from the array of antennas respectively from or to an upper surface of the lens (See at least Fig. 1, [0037] “The metallic coating may be applied to the inside surface of the spherical reflector 140 to form the reflective surface 144”).
Furthermore, 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 radar system disclosed by Binzer with the circuitry system disclosed by Spielmann with the reflector system disclosed by Lopez-Tonazzi. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve performance of reflector antennas (See at least [0008] “a spherical reflector antenna, which substantially improves the performance of related spherical reflector antennas”).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Binzer, Spielmann, and Lopez-Tonazzi as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 16 and 27. The combination of Binzer and Spielmann does not explicitly disclose the reflective material is a metallic coating formed on at least part of a side face of the lens. However, Lopez-Tonazzi, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the reflective material is a metallic coating formed on at least part of a side face of the lens (See at least Fig. 1, [0037] “The metallic coating may be applied to the inside surface of the spherical reflector 140 to form the reflective surface 144”).
Furthermore, 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 radar system disclosed by Binzer with the circuitry system disclosed by Spielmann with the reflector system disclosed by Lopez-Tonazzi. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve performance of reflector antennas (See at least [0008] “a spherical reflector antenna, which substantially improves the performance of related spherical reflector antennas”).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binzer, in view of Spielmann, in further view of Lopez-Tonazzi, in further view of Caruso (US 20220065422 A1), hereinafter Caruso.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Binzer, Spielmann, and Lopez-Tonazzi as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 16, 27, and 28. Binzer does not explicitly disclose semiconductor package. However, Spielmann, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
semiconductor package (See at least Fig. 1, item 56, [0108] “The signals may also be directly transmitted to the receiver circuitry in the receiver IC 56 containing integrated active analog devices such as low-noise amplifiers, electronic mixers or analog-to-digital converters (ADCs) or other semiconductor devices”):
Furthermore, 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 radar system disclosed by Binzer with the circuitry system disclosed by Spielmann. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously achieve a hardware configuration allowing for improved resolution with reduce interference (See at least [0056] “These embodiments provide the benefits of MIMO radar configurations regarding enlarged size of virtual aperture, improved spatial resolution and less sensitivity to interference signals, as is well known in the art”).
The combination of Binzer and Spielmann does not explicitly disclose a dielectric interposer between the
a dielectric interposer between the(See at least Fig. 2B, [0038] “The inflatable spherical reflector 140 may also include one or more dielectric support curtains to keep the spherical shape.”, “supporting bars 221 and 222 may be made of metal or preferably of a material which is transparent to radio frequency (RF). Such a material may include, but not limited to, PTFE (Teflon), Plexiglass, Polyethylene, Polycarbonate and conjugated polymers in general.”).
Furthermore, 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 radar system disclosed by Binzer with the layer system disclosed by Spielmann with the lens system disclosed by Lopez-Tonazzi. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve performance of reflector antennas (See at least [0008] “a spherical reflector antenna, which substantially improves the performance of related spherical reflector antennas”).
The combination of Binzer, Spielmann, and Lopez-Tonazzi does not explicitly disclose wherein the reflective material is formed within or on the dielectric interposer. However, Caruso, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
wherein the reflective material is formed within or on the dielectric interposer (See at least Figs. 23-26, [0348] “dielectric intermediate layer may be used between the reflective coating and the hardcoated substrate”).
Furthermore, 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 radar system disclosed by Binzer with the layer system disclosed by Spielmann with the lens system disclosed by Lopez-Tonazzi with the reflective material system disclosed by Caruso. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve protection (See at least [0054] “To improve the resilience of the radio-transmissive decorative coating, in some embodiments, the radio-transmissive decorative coating may include at least one protective hard coat layer”).
Claim 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binzer, in view of Spielmann, in further view of Lopez-Tonazzi, in further view of Du (US 20260163251 A1), hereinafter Du.
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Binzer, Spielmann, and Lopez-Tonazzi as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 16 and 27. The combination of Binzer, Spielmann, and Lopez-Tonazzi does not explicitly disclose a stub above plane of the array of antennas, offset from the array of antennas and extending laterally way therefrom, and having a length which is an integer multiple of a quarter of an operational wavelength of the array of antennas. However, Du, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
a stub above plane of the array of antennas, offset from the array of antennas and extending laterally way therefrom, and having a length which is an integer multiple of a quarter of an operational wavelength of the array of antennas (See at least [0084] “the first stub 10121 may be 0.125 to 0.25 times a wavelength corresponding to an operating frequency of the high-frequency antenna element 101”).
Furthermore, 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 radar system disclosed by Binzer with the circuitry system disclosed by Spielmann with the reflector system disclosed by Lopez-Tonazzi with the stub disclosed by Du. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce interference (See at least [0007] “The length of the first stub is set to the foregoing range, so that currents on the first stub and an electrode line of the feed line can be at least partially offset, thereby greatly reducing interference of the antenna element to another antenna element that generates a common-mode induced current on the antenna element.”).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Binzer, Spielmann, Lopez-Tonazzi, and Du as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 16, 27, and 32. The combination of Binzer, Spielmann, and Lopez-Tonazzi does not explicitly disclose the length of the stub is an odd multiple of a quarter of the operational wavelength of the array of antennas. However, Du, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the length of the stub is an odd multiple of a quarter of the operational wavelength of the array of antennas (See at least [0084] “the first stub 10121 may be 0.125 to 0.25 times a wavelength corresponding to an operating frequency of the high-frequency antenna element 101”).
Furthermore, 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 radar system disclosed by Binzer with the circuitry system disclosed by Spielmann with the reflector system disclosed by Lopez-Tonazzi with the stub disclosed by Du. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce interference (See at least [0007] “The length of the first stub is set to the foregoing range, so that currents on the first stub and an electrode line of the feed line can be at least partially offset, thereby greatly reducing interference of the antenna element to another antenna element that generates a common-mode induced current on the antenna element.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Allowance of claims 30-31 and 34-35 is indicated because:
None of the prior art of record teach or suggest the subject matter of dependent claims 30-31 and 34-35. The prior art of record does not anticipate or render fairly obvious in combination to teach all of the additional limitations of the claimed invention, as best understood within the context of Applicant’s claimed invention as a whole, such as in claim 30, the dielectric interposer comprises an aperture over the array of antennas, and the reflective material comprises a metal coating on an inner surface of the aperture, and in claim 34, in the stub comprises a metal coating.
Accordingly, claims 30 and 34 are deemed to have allowable subject matter. Claims 31 and 35 would also be considered allowable subject matter by virtue of their dependence on allowable claims.
Claims 30 and 34 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lin (US 20230237702 A1) - The method includes a data collection step, a setup step, a positioning step, an analysis step, and an adjustment step. The data collection step collects spatial data about a scene to be monitored. The setup step installs a number of monitoring devices and a reference device, where the reference device includes a reflector or a calibration pattern. The positioning step determines respective positions of the monitoring devices relative to the reference device. The analysis step determines whether the FOVs of the monitoring devices jointly cover the scene by an algorithm module analyzing the scene data, the FOVs of the monitoring devices, and the relative positions of the monitoring devices against the reference device. The adjustment step provides suggestions about adding one or more monitoring devices or changing positions of the monitoring devices to cover the scene entirely if the FOVs of the monitoring devices do not cover the scene.
Chen (US 20230137593 A1) - Various embodiments are directed to a radar reflector configured for radar-based distance measurements for determining a position of an elevator car within an elevator shaft. The radar reflector comprises three or more triangular panels defining a pyramidal frustum volume having a base plane and an upper plane that are parallel. The pyramidal frustum volume is configured to directly reflect radar signals originating from a radar transceiver back to the radar transceiver based at least in part on the triangular panels being mutually perpendicular at a projected apex above the upper plane. The reflected radar signals reflected by the radar reflector have substantially parallel trajectories with the original, pre-reflected radar signals emitted by the radar transceiver. The triangular panels of the radar reflector being mutually perpendicular advantageously maintains direct reflection of radar signals in spite of any potential horizontal tilt of the radar reflector to a certain extent.
Scarborough (US 20200350681 A1) - A hybrid mechanical-lens array antenna is described that can be configured with different orientations and arrangements of the plurality of lenses within the array to control and enhance the performance at different regions of scan. This can include the addition of a secondary array (a skirt) at a large tilt angle, tilting the primary array, tilting the individual lenses within the primary array, or any combination. These design choices, when holding the number of lens modules (and, therefore, cost and power consumption) constant, have the effect of changing the system height, reducing the boresight gain and increasing the gain at scan, with each option showing different trades of height and scan and boresight performance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH W GOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-4186. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Resha H Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/KENNETH W GOOD/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights