NON-FINAL REJECTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 14 is to a system and recites that that system comprises, among other elements, “a controller […] operable to perform the method of claim 1”. In this sense, claim 14 depends on claim 1 because the reference to the method of claim 1 limits the controller in that the controller must be operable to perform the method of claim 1 in order to read on claim 14; in other words, altering the scope of claim 1 (e.g., by altering the steps that the method of claim 1 comprises) result in altering the scope of claim 14 by altering what the controller must be operable to do.
However, claim 14 does not actually require all the limitations of claim 1 because the method of claim 1 does not actually need to be performed in order to infringe on claim 1. For example, a controller that has been programmed (e.g., via software) to be operable to perform the method of claim 1 reads on the controller of claim 14 even if it is currently just existing without actually performing the method of claim 1. Therefore claim 14 as currently written is in an improper dependent form. Claim 14 should be amended to be an independent claim by explicitly reciting the method steps themselves instead of making reference to “the method of claim 1”.
The discussion above similarly applies to claim 15 for the same reason.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cano Garcia et al., US 2022/0287582 A1 (hereinafter “Cano Garcia”).
Regarding claim 17: Cano Garcia discloses an antenna assembly for use with a system for microwave scanning of biological tissue, comprising:
- at least two antenna arrays, wherein the antenna arrays are separated along an axis, by an axial separation distance, to define a scanning region for receiving biological tissue (Fig. 1, transmitting antenna array on left and receiving antenna array on right, with a scanning region therebetween for receiving biological tissue –in this case, breast tissue); and
- a dielectric covering material coupled to and overlaying each antenna array, wherein the dielectric covering material contacts the biological tissue inserted in the imaging region defined (Fig. 11, ¶ [0132]-[0134]).
Regarding claims 18 and 19: Each antenna array comprises a plurality of slot antennas, and each slot antenna includes a respective shielding interface (Fig. 3; ¶ [0081]-[0087]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, 4, 7-10, 12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Lomnitz et al., US 2014/0276031 A1 (hereinafter “Lomnitz”) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lomnitz in view of Suhami et al., US 2017/0188874 A1 (hereinafter “Suhami”).
Regarding claim 1: Lomnitz discloses a method for microwave scanning of biological tissue, comprising:
activating antenna elements, in an antenna set, wherein the antenna set includes a transmitting antenna element in a transmitting antenna array, and one or more receiving antenna elements in a receiving antenna array (¶ [0013]-[0015], [0053]; further, see discussion below regarding transmission and reception via antennas 102a-102e);
operating at least one microwave transmitter to generate an interrogation microwave signal for transmission, via the transmitting antenna element, into a biological tissue (transmission via one or more antennas 102a-102e in cooperation with the transmit-receive subsystem 104, ¶ [0025]-[0030], [0054]);
receiving, via at least one microwave receiver, one or more received microwave signals from each of the one or more receiving antenna elements (reception via one or more antennas 102a-102e in cooperation with the transmit-receive subsystem 104, ¶ [0025]-[0030], [0054]);
applying pre-conditioning to each of the received microwave signals to generate corresponding conditioned microwave signals, wherein the pre-conditioning isolates tissue response properties from extraneous response factors (e.g., skin cancellation, ¶ [0046]-[0052], [0055]);
analyzing the conditioned microwave signals to determine one or more tissue response properties, associated with the biological tissue (¶ [0055]-[0061]); and
generating an output based on the determined one or more tissue response properties (¶ [0055]-[0061]).
Regarding the limitation of the transmitting antenna array and the receiving antenna array: If this limitation is interpreted to broad enough to include a single antenna array that both transmits and receives, then Lomnitz teaches this limitation as discussed above. However, if this limitation is interpreted more narrowly to preclude a single antenna array that both transmits and receives, then Lomnitz does not teach this limitation; however, this limitation is commonly known such as in Suhami which teaches a transmitting antenna element (antenna 8) in a transmitting antenna array (antennas 7) and one or more receiving antenna elements in a receiving antenna array (receiver array 9a).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lomintz such that the receiving and transmitting antenna array are two distinct arrays of antenna elements, as taught by Suhami; and the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification in order to realize a physically separate transmit and receive geometry in order to enable transmission measurements (e.g., in addition to Lomintz’s back scatter measurements).
Regarding claim 4: the biological tissue is positioned in a scanning region between the transmitting and receiving antenna arrays, and contacts the antenna arrays (see Fig. 2 of Lomitz).
Otherwise, Suhami teaches the biological tissue is positioned in a scanning region between the transmitting and receiving antenna arrays (as two distinct and physically separate arrays), and contacts the antenna arrays (see Fig. 3b of Suhami).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lomintz such that the biological tissue is positioned in a scanning region between the transmitting and receiving antenna arrays (as two distinct and physically separate arrays), and contacts the antenna arrays, as taught by Suhami; and the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification in order to enable transmission measurements (e.g., in addition to Lomintz’s back scatter measurements).
Regarding claim 7: Applying the pre-conditioning to a microwave signal comprises: identifying a transmitting and receiving antenna pair, associated with the microwave signal; determining one or more configuration parameters of the antenna arrays; based on the determining, applying path-specific correction factors to the microwave signal to generate a corrected microwave signal; and applying antenna response compensation factors to the corrected microwave signal to generate a conditioned microwave signal (¶ [0032]-[0052] of Lomintz).
Regarding claim 8: The path-specific correction factors include correction factors for phase and magnitude correction for each the receiving pathway and transmission pathway associated with the transmitting and receiving antenna pair (¶ [0032]-[0052] of Lomintz).
Regarding claim 9: The configuration parameters of antenna arrays correspond to one or more: (i) the positional spacing of antenna elements on each array; (ii) a spatial axial distance between the antenna arrays and/or (iii) a rotational orientation of the antenna (¶ [0032]-[0052] of Lomintz).
Regarding claim 10: The antenna response compensation factors include antenna gain compensation factor and phase center compensation factors, and the antenna compensation factors are associated with: (i) the biological tissue type, and (ii) the configuration parameters of antenna arrays (¶ [0032]-[0052] of Lomintz).
Regarding claim 12: Each antenna array comprises a plurality of slot antenna elements, each slot antenna including a respective shielding interface (see Fig. 3 of Lomintz).
Regarding claim 15: Lomintz discloses a system for microwave scanning of biological tissue, comprising:
- a transmitting and a receiving antenna array (102a-102e), each antenna array comprising a plurality of antenna elements, wherein the antenna arrays are separated along an axis, by an axial separation distance, to define a scanning region for receiving biological tissue (see Fig. 2 and 3);
- at least one microwave transmitter (transmit-receive subsystem 104 including generation circuitry such as oscillators, etc., ¶ [0027]) coupled to the transmitting antenna array;
- at least one microwave receiver (transmit-receive subsystem 104 and data acquisition subsystem 106 including A/D converters, data buffers, etc., ¶ [0027]-[0028]) coupled to the receiving antenna array; and
- a controller (data processing unit 108 and display, storage, and analysis 110) coupled the at least one microwave transmitter and receiver, and operable to perform the method of claim 1 (see above regarding claim 1)
Regarding the limitation of the transmitting and receiving antenna array: If this limitation is interpreted to broad enough to include a single antenna array that both transmits and receives, then Lomnitz teaches this limitation as discussed above. However, if this limitation is interpreted more narrowly to preclude a single antenna array that both transmits and receives, then Lomnitz does not teach this limitation; however, this limitation is commonly known such as in Suhami which teaches a transmitting antenna element (antenna 8) in a transmitting antenna array (antennas 7) and one or more receiving antenna elements in a receiving antenna array (receiver array 9a), wherein the antenna arrays are separated along an axis, by an axial separation distance, to define a scanning region for receiving biological tissue (see Fig. 2 and 3b of Suhami)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lomintz such that the receiving and transmitting antenna array are two distinct arrays of antenna elements, such that the antenna arrays are separated along an axis, by an axial separation distance, to define a scanning region for receiving biological tissue, as taught by Suhami; and the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification in order to realize a physically separate transmit and receive geometry in order to enable transmission measurements (e.g., in addition to Lomintz’s back scatter measurements).
Regarding claim 16: The at least one microwave transmitter comprises a plurality of microwave transmitters, each microwave transmitter coupled to a separate antenna element of the transmitting antenna array, and the at least one microwave receiver comprises a plurality of microwave receivers, each microwave receiver coupled to a separate antenna element of the receiving antenna array (¶ [0003]-[0034]-[0035], Fig. 3 of Lomintz).
Claims 1, 7-11, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Van Veen et al., US 2003/0088180 A1 (hereinafter “Van Veen”) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Van Veen in view of Suhami.
Alternatively, Van Veen also teaches invention of claim 1 as discussed in ¶ [0010] and [0029]-[0073]: a method for microwave scanning of biological tissue, comprising:
activating antenna elements (35, Fig. 1; 63, Fig. 2), in an antenna set, wherein the antenna set includes a transmitting antenna element in a transmitting antenna array, and one or more receiving antenna elements in a receiving antenna array;
operating at least one microwave transmitter (21 and 26, Fig. 1; 51, 55, 58, Fig. 2) to generate an interrogation microwave signal for transmission, via the transmitting antenna element, into a biological tissue;
receiving, via at least one microwave receiver (40, 42, Fig. 1; 66, 70, Fig. 2), one or more received microwave signals from each of the one or more receiving antenna elements;
applying pre-conditioning to each of the received microwave signals to generate corresponding conditioned microwave signals, wherein the pre-conditioning isolates tissue response properties from extraneous response factors (skin artifact subtraction/removal, ¶ [0035], [0047]-[0073]);
analyzing the conditioned microwave signals to determine one or more tissue response properties, associated with the biological tissue (e.g., lesion detection such as large output power corresponding to significant microwave scatterers such as malignant lesions, Abstract, ¶ [0037]-[0039]); and
generating an output based on the determined one or more tissue response properties (the output power is displayed such as in the form of an image, Abstract, ¶ [0027], [0029], [0030]).
Regarding the limitation of the transmitting antenna array and the receiving antenna array: If this limitation is interpreted to broad enough to include a single antenna array that both transmits and receives, then Van Veen teaches this limitation as discussed above. However, if this limitation is interpreted more narrowly to preclude a single antenna array that both transmits and receives, then Van Veen does not teach this limitation; however, this limitation is commonly known such as in Suhami which teaches a transmitting antenna element (antenna 8) in a transmitting antenna array (antennas 7) and one or more receiving antenna elements in a receiving antenna array (receiver array 9a).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Van Veen such that the receiving and transmitting antenna array are two distinct arrays of antenna elements, as taught by Suhami; and the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification in order to realize a physically separate transmit and receive geometry in order to enable transmission measurements (e.g., in addition to Van Veen’s back scatter measurements).
Regarding claim 7: Applying the pre-conditioning to a microwave signal comprises: identifying a transmitting and receiving antenna pair, associated with the microwave signal; determining one or more configuration parameters of the antenna arrays; based on the determining, applying path-specific correction factors to the microwave signal to generate a corrected microwave signal; and applying antenna response compensation factors to the corrected microwave signal to generate a conditioned microwave signal (¶ [0029]-[0073] of Van Veen).
Regarding claim 8: The path-specific correction factors include correction factors for phase and magnitude correction for each the receiving pathway and transmission pathway associated with the transmitting and receiving antenna pair (¶ [0029]-[0073] of Van Veen).
Regarding claim 9: The configuration parameters of antenna arrays correspond to one or more: (i) the positional spacing of antenna elements on each array; (ii) a spatial axial distance between the antenna arrays and/or (iii) a rotational orientation of the antenna (¶ [0029]-[0073] of Van Veen).
Regarding claim 10: The antenna response compensation factors include antenna gain compensation factor and phase center compensation factors, and the antenna compensation factors are associated with: (i) the biological tissue type, and (ii) the configuration parameters of antenna arrays (¶ [0029]-[0073] of Van Veen).
Regarding claim 11: The antenna response compensation factors and path-specific correction factors, are generated by simulation tools, which generate reference compensation and correction factors (¶ [0034]-[0037], [0163] of Van Veen).
Regarding claim 15: Van Veen discloses a system for microwave scanning of biological tissue, comprising:
- a transmitting and a receiving antenna array (36, Fig. 1; 64, Fig. 2), each antenna array comprising a plurality of antenna elements (35; 63), wherein the antenna arrays are separated along an axis, by an axial separation distance, to define a scanning region for receiving biological tissue (see concavity in Fig. 3);
- at least one microwave transmitter (21, 26, Fig. 1; 51, 55, 58, Fig. 2) coupled to the transmitting antenna array;
- at least one microwave receiver (40, 42, Fig. 1; 66, 70, Fig. 2) coupled to the receiving antenna array; and
- a controller (23, 44, 45, 46, Fig. 1; 53, 72, 73, 74, Fig. 2) coupled the at least one microwave transmitter and receiver, and operable to perform the method of claim 1 (see above regarding claim 1)
Regarding the limitation of the transmitting and receiving antenna array: If this limitation is interpreted to broad enough to include a single antenna array that both transmits and receives, then Van Veen teaches this limitation as discussed above. However, if this limitation is interpreted more narrowly to preclude a single antenna array that both transmits and receives, then Van Veen does not teach this limitation; however, this limitation is commonly known such as in Suhami which teaches a transmitting antenna element (antenna 8) in a transmitting antenna array (antennas 7) and one or more receiving antenna elements in a receiving antenna array (receiver array 9a), wherein the antenna arrays are separated along an axis, by an axial separation distance, to define a scanning region for receiving biological tissue (see Fig. 2 and 3b of Suhami)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Van Veen such that the receiving and transmitting antenna array are two distinct arrays of antenna elements, such that the antenna arrays are separated along an axis, by an axial separation distance, to define a scanning region for receiving biological tissue, as taught by Suhami; and the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification in order to realize a physically separate transmit and receive geometry in order to enable transmission measurements (e.g., in addition to Van Veen’s back scatter measurements).
Regarding claim 16: The at least one microwave transmitter comprises a plurality of microwave transmitters, each microwave transmitter coupled to a separate antenna element of the transmitting antenna array, and the at least one microwave receiver comprises a plurality of microwave receivers, each microwave receiver coupled to a separate antenna element of the receiving antenna array (in the embodiment of Fig. 2, each antenna element (63) has its own respective microwave transmitter (58)/microwave receiver (66)).
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.
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 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either Lomnitz or Van Veen, alone or in view of Suhami, and further in view of Cano Garcia.
Regarding claim 5: Neither Lomnitz nor Van Veen teach a dielectric cover material coupled to one or more of transmitting and receiving antenna arrays, and contacts the biological tissue within the scanning region.
Cano Garcia teaches the claimed dielectric cover (¶ [0133]-[0135]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to further modify the inventions of Lomnitz or Van Veen, by providing a dielectric cover material coupled to one or more of transmitting and receiving antenna arrays, and contacts the biological tissue within the scanning region, as taught by Cano Garcia; and the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve transmission.
Regarding claim 6: The claim recites the material selection of the dielectric covering and the limits of the relative permittivity and thickness of the dielectric covering; however, the selection would be an obvious matter of optimization because the ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that limiting the permittivity would result in a stronger signal transmission and limiting the material thickness allows for usage of higher frequencies/shorter wavelengths. Cano Garcia teaches limiting the thickness of the dielectric cover (¶ [0133]-[0135]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cano Garcia by selecting a material for the dielectric covering that has a relative permittivity below 5 and a maximum thickness of 2mm as an obvious matter of optimization the material for a stronger signal transmission, minimizing reflection from the breast skin tissue behind the metamaterial dielectric layers, etc.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cano Garcia.
Regarding claim 20: The claim recites the material selection of the dielectric covering and the limits of the relative permittivity and thickness of the dielectric covering; however, the selection would be an obvious matter of optimization because the ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that limiting the permittivity would result in a stronger signal transmission and limiting the material thickness allows for usage of higher frequencies/shorter wavelengths. Cano Garcia teaches limiting the thickness of the dielectric cover (¶ [0133]-[0135]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cano Garcia by selecting a material for the dielectric covering that has a relative permittivity below 5 and a maximum thickness of 2mm as an obvious matter of optimization the material for a stronger signal transmission, minimizing reflection from the breast skin tissue behind the metamaterial dielectric layers, etc.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, and 13 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.
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) by rewriting the claim in independent form by explicitly reciting all the method steps themselves that the controller is operable to perform.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2: Within the context of claim 1, the prior art of record does not teach or reasonably suggest that activating the antenna elements comprises operating a first switching network to couple the transmitting element to the at least one microwave transmitter, and operating a operating a second switching network to couple the one or more receiving elements to the at least one microwave receiver.
For example, Lomintz implies a switching network of some sort since the same array is used for both transmit and receive; i.e., it is implied that array is coupled to the transmitter during transmission and couple to the receiver during reception. However, since Lomintz teaches using the same array for transmit and receive, there appears to be only one switching network; i.e., Lomintz does not appear to teach two switching networks (one for transmit and the other for receive). Van Veen appears to suffer the same deficiency; i.e., switch 31 (Fig. 1) or directional couplers 60 (Fig. 2) read on a switching network but Van Veen does not teach two switching networks (one for transmit and the other for receive).
Also, Bore et al., US 2019/0336034 A1 (hereinafter “Bore”) also only teaches one switching network (switching matrix 20, Fig. 2).
Although Suhami teaches separate transmit array and receive array, Suhami only teaches (implies) one switching network for transmit; i.e., Suhami presumably does not teach a switching network for receive because it appears that the entire receive array is used during reception (i.e., there is no need for a switching network for reception).
Claim 14 is allowable over the prior art for the substantially the same reasons because it recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 2 (albeit, in the form of a system instead of a method).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN T. SAKAMOTO whose telephone number is (571)272-4958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, ~9AM-5PM Pacific.
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, KEITH M. RAYMOND can be reached at (571) 270-1790. 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.
COLIN T. SAKAMOTO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3798
/COLIN T. SAKAMOTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
18 April 2026
Prosecution Insights