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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges amending of claims 1, 29.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 29 (cathode of the at least one laser diode directly connected to ground) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument (Remarks 4/5/26 pgs. 7-8). New reference Colles (US-20210305770-A1).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the at least one laser diode cathode directly connected to ground (claims 1, 29; fig. 7 shows intervening Rsen1 resistor) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “connecting single cathode 744 directly to ground” (0141, fig. 7 shows intervening Rsen1 resistor) as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-9, 15-16, 21, 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Colles (US-20210305770-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Colles discloses a pulsed laser diode driver (fig. 9a, 0070), comprising: at least one low side switching circuit connected to at least one laser diode (low side switching circuit Vin+MBP+LS+CBP connected to laser diode DL), the at least one laser diode being configured to generate at least one light pulse (DL configured to generate light pulse, 0041), wherein the at least one low side switching circuit includes: an input for receiving energy (Vin node, 0034); an inductor configured to store at least a portion of the received energy (LS stores portion of Vin energy, 0046, fig. 3 step 302); and a trigger switch (MBP, 0046) configured to: cause the inductor to store the portion of the received energy when the trigger switch is closed (MBP causes LS to store Vin energy when MBP closed/ON, 0046, fig. 3 step 302); and deliver the portion of the received energy stored in the inductor to the at least one laser diode when the trigger switch is opened (MBP delivers energy from LS to DL when MBP opened/OFF, 0046, step 303), wherein a cathode of the at least one laser diode is directly connected to ground (cathode of DL directly connected to ground).
Process steps for fig. 9A same as those for figs. 1A-C, sans MDL switch, see 0070.
Regarding claim 4, Colles discloses the pulsed laser diode driver of claim 1, further comprising a capacitor (CBP, 0070).
Regarding claim 6, Colles discloses the pulsed laser diode driver of claim 1, wherein the energy is received from a power supply (energy received from power supply VIN, 0034).
Regarding claim 7, Colles discloses the pulsed laser diode driver of claim 1, wherein delivering the portion of the received energy stored in the inductor to the at least one laser diode causes the at least one laser diode to generate the at least one light pulse (LS energy to DL causes DL to emit light pulse, 0046, fig. 3 step 303).
Regarding claim 8, Colles discloses the pulsed laser diode driver of claim 1, wherein the trigger switch includes a contact to ground (MBP includes a contact to ground).
Regarding claim 9, Colles discloses the pulsed laser diode driver of claim 1, wherein the at least one laser diode includes a single forward biased laser diode (DL is single forward biased laser during light emission, 0070).
Regarding claim 15, Colles discloses the pulsed laser diode driver of claim 1, wherein an intensity of the at least one light pulse generated by the at least one laser diode depends on a timing cycle associated with the trigger switch (see fig. 2a, Current/intensity through DL depends on current (222) through LS and duration through LS, LS discharged during pulse to DL, 0040-0041).
Regarding claim 16, Colles discloses the pulsed laser diode driver of claim 15, wherein the intensity of the at least one light pulse increases with an increase in a time duration during which the trigger switch remains closed.
Fig. 2a intensity of pulse/current will increase with trigger close time/LS charge time/current (0040-0041).
Regarding claim 21, Colles discloses the pulsed laser diode driver of claim 6, wherein a voltage associated with the power supply is less than the laser diode forward voltage (Vin < forward DL voltage, 0070).
Regarding claim 27, Colles discloses the pulsed laser diode driver of claim 1, wherein the at least one low side switching circuit further includes a capacitor connected to the inductor to form a resonance circuit with a time constant that affects a pulse width of the of the at least one light pulse (capacitor CS to form LC resonance circuit w/ inductor LS that affects pulse width, 0043-0044, see also fig. 2a-c resonance).
Regarding claim 28, Colles discloses the pulsed laser diode driver of claim 1, wherein in the at least one low side switching circuit, the at least one laser diode is not activated in response to a short circuit condition of the trigger switch.
Short circuit in MBP will cause constant ON. DL will never be activated as MBP will never turn OFF (0046-0047, 0070).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 10-11, 17, 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colles in view of Lenius (US-9368936-B1).
Regarding claim 2, Colles discloses the pulsed laser diode driver of claim 1.
Colles does not disclose further comprising a snubber circuit.
Lenius discloses a pulsed laser diode driver with a snubber circuit (fig. 5E 546/SNUBBER CIRCUIT, col. 4 lines 20-35, col. 23 lines 65-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a snubber circuit to the pulsed laser diode driver to regulate and/or smooth variations across other switching circuit components and prevent damage (Lenius col. 23 line 65 – col. 24 line 20).
Regarding claim 10, Colles discloses the pulsed laser diode driver of claim 1.
Colles does not disclose wherein the at least one laser diode includes a plurality of laser diodes configured to concurrently generate a plurality of light pulses.
Lenius discloses a pulsed laser diode driver with a plurality of laser diodes configured to concurrently generate a plurality of light pulses (fig. 5E 554a-n generate plurality of light pulses “substantially at the same time”, col. 23 lines 45-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one laser diode includes a plurality of laser diodes configured to concurrently generate a plurality of light pulses to allow for brighter combined pulses and provide additional backup diodes in case some fail.
Regarding claim 11, modified Colles discloses the pulsed laser diode driver of claim 10.
Modified Colles does not disclose wherein the plurality of laser diodes includes at least three laser diodes.
Lenius discloses a pulsed laser diode driver with 16 laser diodes/circuits (col. 23 lines 15-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least three diodes to provide higher output without risking damage to a single diode and provide additional backup diodes in case some fail.
Regarding claim 17, Colles discloses the pulsed laser diode driver of claim 15.
Colles does not disclose wherein the time duration during which the trigger switch remains closed is between 5 ns and 1000 ns.
Lenius discloses a pulsed laser diode driver wherein a time duration during which a trigger switch remains closed is between 5 ns and 1000 ns (fig. 5B + E, col. 19 lines 59-60 “20 nanoseconds” between 5 ns and 1000 ns, col. 21 lines 58-60 for charge time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the trigger switch closed between 5 and 1000 ns to produce a light pulse associated with a charge time between 5 and 1000 ns, to balance increasing signal strength + reducing peak power requirements (high time) with decreasing eye damage (low time).
Regarding claim 23, Colles discloses the pulsed laser diode driver of claim 6.
Colles does not disclose wherein the energy received from the power supply is associated with a first power level, and the energy delivered to the at least one laser diode is associated with a second power level greater than the first power level.
Lenius discloses a pulsed laser diode driver wherein the energy received from the power supply is associated with a first power level (fig. 5E + 5B energy received by capacitor from power supply is associated with first power level to capacitor during delta tCHARGE to 2V1, col. 23 lines 16-17), and the energy delivered to the at least one laser diode is associated with a second power level greater than the first power level (fig. 5E + 5B voltage drop ~ 2V1 to 0 during while laser diode is ON occurs during delta tON, col. 19 lines 31-33 + 46-49) (Roughly same voltage change + energy transferred in far less time, therefore, second power level greater than first).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the energy received from the power supply associated with a first power level, and the energy delivered to the at least one laser diode associated with a second power level greater than the first power level to provide higher power to laser diode than what can be provided by power supply + not stress power supply.
Regarding claim 24, modified Colles discloses the pulsed laser diode driver of claim 23.
Modified Colles does not disclose wherein the second power level is at least 2 times the first power level.
Lenius discloses the pulsed laser diode driver of claim 23, wherein the second power level is at least 2 times the first power level.
Roughly equivalent voltage change 2V1 in delta tON. delta tON is less than half delta tCHARGE, therefore, second power level at least 2 times first. Fig. 5E+5B, col. 19 lines 31-33+46-49, col. 23 lines 16-17.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second power level at least 2 times the first power level to provide the laser diode with a power at least 2x what the power supply can provide to the storage inductor + to maximize output for a given input.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colles in view of Kuo (US-20210066885-A1).
Regarding claim 3, Colles discloses the pulsed laser diode driver of claim 1.
Colles does not disclose further comprising a low side sensing circuit.
Kuo discloses a pulsed laser diode driver further comprising a low side sensing circuit (fig. 1, fig. 13 measurement circuit 210 can be added to any configuration, 0072-0074).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a low side sensing circuit to help calculate energy per pulse and ensure energy stays within eye safety limit (Kuo 0074).-
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colles in view of Lenius and Kuo.
Regarding claim 12, modified Colles discloses the pulsed laser diode driver of claim 10.
Modified Colles does not explicitly wherein each of the plurality of laser diodes is configured to generate a plurality of light pulses having a power of at least 5W in less than 500 ns.
Kuo discloses a desire to generate/use high power + short pulses for LIDAR applications (0027).
It is well known to optimize values (i.e. minimize time + maximize power) within prior art to achieve desired results (MPEP 2144.05 II A/B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each of the plurality of laser diodes configured to generate a plurality of light pulses having a power of at least 5W in less than 500 ns to see further, distinguish objects, and stay within the eye safety limit (Kuo 0027).
Regarding claim 13, modified Colles discloses the pulsed laser diode driver of claim 10.
Modified Colles does not disclose wherein the plurality of laser diodes are connected to a common cathode.
Kuo discloses an array of laser driver circuits with a plurality of laser diodes all of which are connected to a common cathode (annotated fig. 14 plurality of LDs in 302s connected to common cathode, 0075-0076).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the plurality of laser diodes to a common cathode to simplify circuit design and ground management.
PNG
media_image1.png
436
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 14
Regarding claim 14, modified Colles discloses the pulsed laser diode driver of claim 10.
Modified Colles does not disclose wherein each of the plurality of laser diodes is associated with a separate control circuit.
Kuo discloses an array of laser driver circuits with a plurality of laser diodes, wherein each of the plurality of laser diodes is associated with a separate control circuit (fig. 14 plurality of LDs each associated with a separate 302, 0075-0076).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each of the plurality of laser diodes associated with a separate control circuit to allow for continued operation in case of failure of one of the control circuits.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colles in view of Russell (US-20190107606-A1).
Regarding claim 18, Colles discloses the pulsed laser diode driver of claim 15.
Colles does not disclose wherein the power of the at least one light pulse is between 5W and 150W.
Russell discloses a LIDAR distance-measuring system with adjustable pulses (Abstract) with an average power of approximately 1 milliwatt (mW), 10 mW, 100 mW, 1 watt (W), 10 W, or any other suitable average power (0023 lines 3-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to constrain the power of the at least one light pulse between 5W and 150W to maintain a certain minimum operational range for the device (increase power) while still conserving energy and limiting eye damage (decrease power).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colles in view of Verghese (US-20180136321-A1).
Regarding claim 19, Colles discloses the pulsed laser diode driver of claim 15.
Colles does not disclose wherein the at least one light pulse includes a plurality of light pulses, and each of the plurality of light pulses has a different intensity.
Verghese discloses a method for a lidar device with at least one light pulse that includes a plurality of light pulses, and each of the plurality of light pulses has a different intensity (fig. 2a-b, 0184, first pulse 0.5, second pulse 1.5, third pulse 2.5, fourth pulse 3.5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one light pulse includes a plurality of light pulses, and each of the plurality of light pulses has a different intensity to help distinguish reflected light originating from the lidar device from unwanted external light and also separate different detection regions based on pulse intensity (Verghese 0141, 0180).
Regarding claim 20, modified Colles discloses the pulsed laser diode driver of claim 19.
Modified Colles does not disclose wherein the plurality of light pulses includes a first light pulse with a first intensity, a second light pulse subsequent to the first pulse light with intensity at least 25% greater than the first intensity, and a third light pulse subsequent to the second pulse light with intensity at least 25% less than the first intensity.
Verghese discloses a method for a lidar device with at least one light pulse that includes a plurality of light pulses including a first light pulse with a first intensity (“second” in Verghese 1.5 W/m^2), a second light pulse with intensity at least 25% greater than the first intensity (“third” in Verghese 2.5 W/m^2), and a third light pulse with intensity at least 25% less than the first intensity (“first” in Verghese 0.5 W/m^2) (fig. 2a-b, 0184, first pulse 0.5, second pulse 1.5, third pulse 2.5, fourth pulse 3.5).
Applicant does not demonstrate any criticality for the specific ordering described in claim 20. It would have been obvious to rearrange the pulse train to use the claim 20 ordering. See MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a first light pulse with a first intensity, a second light pulse subsequent to the first pulse light with intensity at least 25% greater than the first intensity, and a third light pulse subsequent to the second pulse light with intensity at least 25% less than the first intensity to help distinguish reflected light originating from the lidar device from unwanted external light and also separate different detection regions based on pulse intensity and allow for diode to “rest” by using least intense pulse after most intense before beginning new sequence (Verghese 0141, 0180).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colles in view of Tsuchiyama (US-20210313768-A1).
Regarding claim 22, Colles discloses the pulsed laser diode driver of claim 21.
Colles does not disclose wherein the laser diode forward voltage is less than 6.5V.
Tsuchiyama discloses a light source apparatus and sensing module with 2-2.5 V forward voltage light emitting elements (Abstract, 0167-0169).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the laser diode forward voltage less than 6.5V to reduce energy consumption within the device.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colles in view of Lenius and Kuo/"Kuo2" (US-20210376566-A1).
Regarding claim 25, modified Colles discloses the pulsed laser diode driver of claim 23.
Modified Colles does not disclose wherein the first power level is less than 150W, and the second power level is greater than 300W.
Kuo2 discloses a laser diode driver circuit with a power level received from a power supply being less than a power level delivered to a laser diode (figs. 3+5, 0036+0040+0041, power delivered to energy reservoir circuit is lower than power delivered to diode during pulse). When determining power supply power level, Kuo2 also discloses balancing both the goal of improving capacitor recovery time and the goal of reducing interference with various circuit elements within the device (0030).
It is well known to optimize values associated with a device to achieve desired results (MPEP 2144.05 II A/B).
Based on the caselaw and the disclosure in Kuo2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first power level less than 150W and the second power level greater than 300W to minimize power supply interference with circuit elements in Colles while still allowing for high power pulses.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colles in view of Wyland (US-20170005465-A1).
Regarding claim 26, Colles discloses the pulsed laser diode driver of claim 1.
Colles does not disclose wherein the inductor includes an air core coil.
Wyland discloses a power switching device that drives pulsed power through light emitters and uses an air core type inductor (fig. 2B RL55 + L5, 0054 lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an air core coil in the inductor in Kuo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to limit the amount of material needed to make the inductor by not including ferromagnetic material.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colles in view of Kremer (US-20180113216-A1).
Regarding claim 29, Colles discloses a LIDAR system (fig. 9a, 0002), comprising: at least one laser diode configured to generate at least one light pulse (DL configured to generate light pulse, 0041); and a pulsed laser diode driver (driver 901, 0070), comprising: at least one low side switching circuit connected to the at least one laser diode (low side switching circuit Vin+MBP+LS+CBP connected to laser diode DL) , wherein the at least one low side switching circuit includes: an input for receiving energy (Vin node, 0034); an inductor configured to store at least a portion of the received energy (LS stores portion of Vin energy, 0046, fig. 3 step 302); and a trigger switch (MBP, 0046) configured to: cause the inductor to store the portion of the received energy when the trigger switch is closed (MBP causes LS to store Vin energy when MBP closed/ON, 0046, fig. 3 step 302), and deliver the portion of the received energy stored in the inductor to the at least one laser diode when the trigger switch is opened (MBP delivers energy from LS to DL when MBP opened/OFF, 0046, step 303).
Colles does not disclose one or more scanning deflectors configured to direct the at least one light pulse toward a field of view of the LIDAR system.
Kremer discloses a scanning LIDAR device with one or more scanning deflectors configured to direct at least one light pulse toward a field of view of the LIDAR system (fig. 1C 120 is shown redirecting transmitted light pulse toward field of view, 0045 lines 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added one or more scanning deflectors configured to direct the at least one light pulse toward a field of view of the LIDAR system to facilitate control of the outputted pulse direction during operation of the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 5: New art used to reject amended claim 1 does not disclose GaN-FET switch and teaches away from using a GaN-FET switch, rendering any potential modification unreasonable.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alex Ehrlich whose telephone number is (703)756-5716. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, 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 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.
/A.E./Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /MINSUN O HARVEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights