www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`17/019,756
`
`09/14/2020
`
`Bien CHANN
`
`TER-080C3/1 10853-508
`
`1659
`
`Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (BO)
`2222 MarketStreet
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`
`NIU, XINNING
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`ART UNIT
`
`2828
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`03/05/2024
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`judith.troilo@ morganlewis.com
`phpatentcorrespondence @ morganlewis.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`15 and 18-37 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) _ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`C) Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 15 and 18-37 is/are rejected.
`(] Claim(s)__ is/are objectedto.
`C] Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10)(C The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11) The drawing(s)filed on 14 September 2020is/are: a)(¥| accepted or b)L) objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)£) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`_—_c)L) None ofthe:
`b)L) Some**
`a)Q) All
`1.1) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. |
`3.2.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`*“ See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) (J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`4)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20240228
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`171019,756
`CHANN etal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF)StatusExaminer
`XINNING(TOM) NIU
`2828
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORYPERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensionsof time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 01 November 2023.
`C) A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)() This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3) An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)(2) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/019, 756
`Art Unit: 2828
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA orAIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The presentapplication,filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first
`
`inventorto file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Terminal Disclaimer
`
`2.
`
`The terminal disclaimer filed on November 01, 2023 disclaiming the terminal portion of any
`
`patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`9,525,269, 9,941,668 and 10,804,679 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has
`
`been recorded.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`3.
`
`Applicant's argumentsfiled November 01, 2023 have been fully considered but they are not
`
`persuasive. The applicant has argued on page 7 of the arguments that “Liedenbaum’s etalon does not
`
`and could not stabilize beams from different emitters eachto a different wavelength...Liedenbaum’s
`
`etalon is specifically designed...to produce light of a single wavelength”. The examiner does not agree.
`
`Lidenbaum teaches “By suitable choice of the distance w between the surfaces and/orthe refractive
`
`index of the medium, it canbe ensured that radiation having a given wavelength is reflected”(Fig. 14,
`
`col. 16, lines 9-28). The device of Huber as modified by Liedenbaum results in the etalon and partially
`
`reflective mirror of Huber being replaced by the etalon of Lidenbaum. The beams emitted by a plurality
`
`of emitters would be partially reflected by the etalon and used to stabilize the different emitters.
`
`4,
`
`Applicant’s arguments, filed November 01, 2023, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 34
`
`have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/019, 756
`Art Unit: 2828
`
`Page 3
`
`uponfurther consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is madein view of Bhandarkar et al. (US PG Pub
`
`2005/0069013).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`5.
`
`Inthe 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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory
`
`basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AlA) 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.
`
`6.
`
`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 ina printed publication, or in public use, on sale,
`or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
`
`7.
`
`Claims 34-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bhandarkar et al. (US
`
`PG Pub 2005/0069013).
`
`8.
`
`Regarding claim 34, Bhandarkar etal. disclose: receiving a plurality of beams (from edge
`
`emitting laser array 110) at an etalon (glass block 140), each beam having a different wavelength (Fig. 1,
`
`[0005]); spatially combining the plurality of beams at the etalon to form a multi-wavelength output
`
`beam (Fig. 1, [0005]); and emitting the output beam from the etalon (the multiple light beams from
`
`edge emitting laser array 110 are multiplexed into a single beam that is output via an exit channel) (Fig.
`
`1, [0005)).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/019, 756
`Art Unit: 2828
`
`Page 4
`
`9.
`
`Regarding claim 35, Bhandarkar et al. disclose: wherein each of the beams is received ata
`
`different location on the etalon (it canbe seen in Fig. 1 that each beam from the laser arrayis emitted
`
`towardslens array from a different location) (Fig. 1, [0005]).
`
`10.
`
`Regarding claim 36, Bhandarkar et al. disclose: wherein the output beam is emitted from the
`
`etalon ata location, on the etalon,different from a location at which at least one of the beamsis
`
`received on the etalon (output beam exits at right end of glass block/etalon, beams are received to the
`
`left of the exit end) (Fig. 1).
`
`11.
`
`Regarding claim 37, Bhandarkar etal. disclose: wherein (i) at least one of the beamsis received
`
`ata first location on the etalon and reflected within the etalon to a second location on the etalon,
`
`different from the first location, from which the output beam is emitted (light beams entering glass
`
`block 140 bounce down the length of the glass block and exits and end of the glass block), and(ii) at
`
`least another one of the beams is combined into the output beam within the etalon and emitted
`
`therefrom without reflection within the etalon (right most beam from array 110 would be combined
`
`into the output beam without reflection within the etalon) (Fig. 1, [0005]).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`12.
`
`Inthe 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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory
`
`basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AlA) 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/019, 756
`Art Unit: 2828
`
`Page5S
`
`13.
`
`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 forthin 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.
`
`14.
`
`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.
`
`15.
`
`Claims 15 and 18-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of
`
`Huber et al. (US PG Pub 2016/0204570)in view of Liedenbaum etal. (US 5,471490) and Frankel et al. (US
`
`PG Pub 2006/0092994).
`
`16.
`
`Regarding claim15, Huber et al. disclose: stabilizing beams emitted by a plurality of emitters
`
`(101A-101N) each to a different, unique wavelengthin an external laser cavity comprising a stabilizing
`
`element therein (a thin-film etalon as a wavelength selective element and a partially reflective mirror to
`
`direct resonant feedback into a plurality of emitters to facilitate beam wavelength stabilization; for each
`
`constituent beam of the external resonator component 110, a preferred resonant mode component and
`
`an alternative resonant mode component can be defined.) (Fig. 1, [(0054]).
`
`17.
`
`Huber et al. do not disclose: transmitting the stabilized beamsto a dispersive element, the
`
`dispersive element combining the stabilized beams into a multi-wavelength output beam, wherein each
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/019, 756
`Art Unit: 2828
`
`Page 6
`
`beam is stabilized to its unique wavelength by introducing the beam to the stabilizing element, the
`
`stabilizing element (i) comprising an etalon,(ii) reflecting a portion of each beam back to its emitter to
`
`stabilize the beam, and(iii) transmitting each stabilized beam.
`
`18.
`
`Liedenbaum etal. disclose: the required functions of wavelength selection and reflection
`
`towardsthe diode laser may not only befulfilled by a reflecting grating but also by a Fabry-Perot etalon
`
`as is shown in FIG. 14. Such an etalon comprises two partially reflecting, flat or curved surfaces enclosing
`
`a medium such as, for example air or glass (Fig. 14, col. 16, lines 9-28). It would have been obvious to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the
`
`device of Huber by replacing the etalon and partially reflective mirror with the etalon of Lidenbaum for
`
`reflection towards the emitters and wavelength selection in order to stabilize the wavelength of the
`
`plurality of emitters without using an extra optical element. The device as modified disclose: wherein
`
`each beamis stabilized to its unique wavelength by introducing the beamto the stabilizing element, the
`
`stabilizing element (i) comprising an etalon,(ii) reflecting a portion of each beam back to its emitter to
`
`stabilize the beam, and(iii) transmitting each stabilized beam.
`
`19.
`
`Huber as modified do not disclose: transmitting the stabilized beams toa dispersive element,
`
`the dispersive element combining the stabilized beams into a multi-wavelength output beam.
`
`20.
`
`Frankel et al. disclose: a beam combining diffractive element (grating) 504 that produces an
`
`overlapping amplified high power pulsed output beam 505 having all the wavelengths of the individual
`
`MOPAgain elements 501 ([0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskill in the art before
`
`the effectivefiling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Huber as modified by adding a
`
`diffractive element in order to produce an overlapping beam havingall the wavelengthsof the individual
`
`emitters.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/019, 756
`Art Unit: 2828
`
`Page 7
`
`21.
`
`Regarding claim18, Huber as modified disclose: wherein an optical axis of the stabilizing
`
`element(etalon 103 tilted at non-zero angle) is tilted at a non-zero tilt angle with respect toa
`
`propagation direction of the beam (Huber, Fig. 1, [0054)]).
`
`22.
`
`Regarding claim19, Huber as modified do not disclose: wherein thetilt angle of the stabilizing
`
`element is selected from the range of approximately 2° to approximately 25°.
`
`23.
`
`However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.05 II, Optimization of Ranges: Where the general
`
`conditions of a claimare disclosed in the prior art, itis not inventive to discover the optimum or
`
`workable ranges by routine experimentation.
`
`In the prior art, the general conditions are disclosed, an
`
`external cavity beam stabilizing device comprising an etalon tiled at an angle. Therefore, it would have
`
`been obvious to one of ordinaryskill in the art at the time of the invention to obtain a workable range of
`
`values for the tilt angle by routine experimentation.
`
`24,
`
`Regarding claim 20, Huber as modified disclose: wherein introducing the beam tothestabilizing
`
`element comprises focusing the beam (focusing using element 102) toward the stabilizing element
`
`(Huber, Fig. 1, [0058)).
`
`25.
`
`Regarding claim 21, Huber as modified do not disclose: wherein the dispersive element
`
`comprises a dispersive prism, a grism, oran Echelle grating.
`
`26.
`
`The examiner takesofficial notice that a dispersive prism, a grism, or an Echelle grating was well
`
`known inthe art before the time offiling. For example, see Chann et al. (US PG Pub 2011/0222574)
`
`({0006]). It would have been obvious to one ofordinary skill in the art before the effectivefiling date of
`
`the claimed invention to modify the device of Huber as modified by using an Echelle grating to combine
`
`a plurality of beams because the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/019, 756
`Art Unit: 2828
`
`Page 8
`
`results toone of ordinary skill in the art. In the instant case, the predictable result is an external cavity
`
`beam stabilizing device comprising an echelle grating.
`
`27.
`
`Regarding claim 22, Huber as modified disclose: wherein the dispersive element comprises a
`
`diffraction grating (504) (Frankel, [0039]).
`
`28.
`
`Regarding claim 23, Huber as modified do not disclose: wherein the dispersive element
`
`comprises a transmissive diffraction grating.
`
`29.
`
`The examiner takesofficial notice that a transmissive diffraction grating was well known in the
`
`art before the time offiling. For example, see Nowak et al. (US PG Pub 2012/0012762) (0071). It would
`
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed
`
`invention to modify the device of Huber as modified by using atransmissive diffraction grating to
`
`combine a plurality of beams because the substitution of one known elementfor another yields
`
`predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Inthe instant case, the predictable result is an
`
`external cavity beam stabilizing device comprising a transmissive diffraction grating.
`
`30.
`
`Regarding claim 24, Huber as modified disclose: wherein each of the beam emitters comprises a
`
`diode laser (Huber, [0053)).
`
`31.
`
`Regarding claim 25, Huberas modified do not disclose: further comprising collimating each
`
`beam after emission thereof by its beam emitter.
`
`32.
`
`The examiner takesofficial notice that collimating each beam after emission thereof by its beam
`
`emitter was well known in the art before the time offiling. For example, see Farmer etal. (US
`
`6,657,775) (Fig. 1, col 4, lines 46-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/019, 756
`Art Unit: 2828
`
`Page 9
`
`the effectivefiling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Huber as modified by
`
`collimating each beam after emission by its beam emitter in order to ensure production of a high-quality
`
`multi-spectralcombined output beam.
`
`33.
`
`Regarding claim 26, Huber as modified do not disclose: wherein transmitting the stabilized
`
`beams to the dispersive element comprises converging the stabilized beams toward the dispersive
`
`element.
`
`34.
`
`The examiner takesofficial notice that converging the stabilized beams toward the dispersive
`
`element was well known in the art before the time offiling. For example, see Farmer et al. (US
`
`6,657,775) converging beams toward grating using lens 15 (Fig. 1, col 4, lines 46-61). It would have been
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
`
`modify the device of Huber as modified by using a lens to converge the stabilized beams toward the
`
`grating in order to ensure production of a high-quality multi-spectral combined output beam.
`
`35.
`
`Regarding claim 27, Huber as modified disclose: wherein the stabilized beams are converged
`
`toward the dispersive element by one or more lenses (see the rejection of claim 26).
`
`36.
`
`Regarding claim 28, Huber as modified do not disclose: further comprising coupling at least a
`
`portion of the output beam into an optical fiber.
`
`37.
`
`The examiner takesofficial notice that coupling at least a portion of the output beam into an
`
`optical fiber was well known in the art before the time offiling. For example, see Farmer et al. (US
`
`6,657,775) (Fig. 1, col 4, lines 46-61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
`
`the effectivefiling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Huber as modified by coupling
`
`the output beam into an optical fiber in order to direct the output beam toadesired location.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/019, 756
`Art Unit: 2828
`
`Page 10
`
`38.
`
`Regarding claim 29, Huber as modified do not disclose: further comprising delivering the at least
`
`a portion of the output beam to a workpiece.
`
`39.
`
`The examiner takesofficial notice that delivering the at least a portion of the output beamtoa
`
`workpiece was well known in the art before the time offiling. For example, see Chann et al. (US PG Pub
`
`2011/0305256) ([0149]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Huber as modified by coupling the
`
`output beam into an optical fiber and delivering the output beam to a workpiece in order to cut or weld
`
`the workpiece.
`
`AO.
`
`Regarding claim 30, Huber as modified disclose: further comprising cutting or welding the
`
`workpiece with the at least a portion of the output beam (see the rejection of claim 29).
`
`41.
`
`Regarding claim 31, Huber as modified do not disclose: further comprising delivering at least a
`
`portion of the output beam to a workpiece.
`
`42.
`
`The examiner takesofficial notice that delivering the at least a portion of the output beamtoa
`
`workpiece was well known in the art before the time offiling. For example, see Chann et al. (US PG Pub
`
`2011/0305256) ([0149]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Huber as modified by coupling the
`
`output beam into an optical fiber and delivering the output beam to a workpiece in order to cut or weld
`
`the workpiece.
`
`43.
`
`Regarding claim 32, Huber as modified disclose: further comprising cutting or welding the
`
`workpiece with the at least a portion of the output beam (see the rejection of claim 32).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/019, 756
`Art Unit: 2828
`
`Page 11
`
`44,
`
`Regarding claim 33, Huber as modified disclose: wherein each of the beam emitters comprises
`
`an optical fiber (The individual laser emitters may be fiber lasers) (Huber, [0053]).
`
`Conclusion
`
`45.
`
`The prior art made of recordand notrelied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
`
`disclosure. Magill et al. (US 5,172,383) disclose: In one exemplary embodiment, thefilter is realized by
`
`the combination of a Fabry-Perot etalon, whose longitudinal axis is angled with respect to the
`
`longitudinal axis (propagation axis) of the laser output beam directed ontothe filter, together with an
`
`external reflector which is parallel to the Fabry-Perot etalon to permit multi-passing of the beam
`
`between the Fabry-Perot etalon and the reflector (Abstract). Villeneuve et al. (US 5,825,792) disclose: A
`
`compact wavelength monitoring and control assembly for a laser emission source is provided comprising
`
`a narrow bandpass, wavelength selective transmissionfilter element, of Fabry-Perot etalon structure,
`
`through which a non-collimated beam from the laser source is directed onto twoclosely spaced
`
`photodetectors. Chapman etal. (US PG Pub 2003/0007523) disclose: External cavity lasers apparatus
`
`and methodsthat allow fast tuning, high wavelength stability, low cavity losses, and form factors that
`
`are comparable to solid state, fixed wavelength lasers. The apparatus comprise a gain medium emitting
`
`a light beam, a tunable wavelengthselection element positioned in the light beamand configured feed
`
`back light of a selected wavelength to the gain medium, and a microelectromechanical systems (MEMS)
`
`actuator element operatively coupled to the tunable wavelengths election element. The MEMS actuator
`
`element may be configured to actuate the tunable wavelength selection element according toafirst
`
`degree of freedom to select the wavelength of the feedback to the gain medium, and to actuate the
`
`actuate the tunable wavelength selection element according to a second degree of freedom to provide
`
`phase control of the feedback (Abstract).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/019, 756
`Art Unit: 2828
`
`Page 12
`
`46.
`
`Anyinquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
`
`should be directed to XINNING(TOM) NIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1437. The examiner can
`
`normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-6:00pm.
`
`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 reachthe examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
`
`Minsun Harvey can be reached on 571-272-1835. 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 managepatent 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 aboutfiling 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.
`
`/XINNING(Tom) NIU/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
`
`