DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments filed 8/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the Rejection under 35 U.S.C 103 based on Pobanz as modified by Lalezari, the Applicant states that the prior art in combination fails to disclose the subject matter of claim 1 and further claims that a such modification would render the device of Pobanz inoperable for its purpose. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the art rejection.
With respect to Pobanz the Applicant states on page 9 of the remarks that “The patches are not interconnected by any striplines, let alone by striplines that are printed on the same substrate layer surface as the patches. Thus, the antennas form individual patch antennas, not a patch array.” The Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion that the array of antennas disclosed by Pobanz is not a patch array. Figure 1 part 10 of Pobanz depicts a grid of antenna patches connected to the integrated circuit 115. The patch antennas are further used collectively to capture a millimeter wave image (See Col.3, ll.8-16, Pobanz). As the Examiner can find no clarifying special definition in the specification regarding patch arrays, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the grid of antenna patches in Figure 3 part 10 do in fact constitute a patch array. Further, Pobanz is not relied upon to teach an interconnection between patches or the location in which the striplines are printed (see 103 rejection below).
The Applicant states on page 9 paragraph 3 of the remarks that “It would be improper to alter the device of Pobanz so as to have a patch array antenna for each bit.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant argues that modifying the device of Pobanz to have a patch array for each bit would increase the size of each pixel and lower the resolution of the device. The Applicant claims that this modification would render the device of Pobanz inoperable for its purpose. In response the Examiner points to the NPL document Ouadiaa (Microstrip Patch Antenna Array and its Applications: a Survey). Figure 2 of Ouadiaa demonstrates that increasing interconnected patch antenna elements improves gain. Increasing gain narrows the beam width and therefore increases resolution. While using a patch array for each pixel might increase the size of each pixel, Ouadiaa demonstrates that resolution is increased, not decreased as alleged. Modifying Pobanz so as to have a patch antenna for each bit is both proper and advantageous.
The Applicant further states on page 9 paragraph 3 of the remarks that “Pobanz teaches away from a device that requires movement to make an image,” arguing that the “whole purpose” of Pobanz is to “provide a small device with high resolution that can take an image at one time without requiring the device to be moved.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2144.05(III)(B) states, “A prima facie case of obviousness may also be rebutted by showing that the art, in any material respect, teaches away from the claimed invention.” The purported movement requirement to make an image is not stated in the claims. Pobanz does not teach away from the invention as claimed. It is the claims that define the claimed invention, and it is the claims, not the specification that are anticipated or unpatentable. Constant v. Advanced MicroDevicesInc., 7 USPQ2d 1064.
The Applicant states on page 10 of the remarks that the antenna disclosed by Lalezari “does not have printed patches that are interconnected by the striplines printed on the same surface of the substrate layer as the patches.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Figure 4A of Lalezari discloses a radiator patch 109 and a signal input printed on the same side of the substrate layer 107. Lalezari discloses striplines printed on the same surface of the substrate layer as the patches. The Applicant further argues that the feed lines of Lalezari are not connected to the patches as the two are instead capacitively coupled. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed printed patches being “connected” to striplines does not exclude capacitive coupling. While the printed patches are capacitively coupled to the striplines, they are still “connected.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 15-19, 21, 24, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pobanz(US6828556B2) in view of Lalezari(US5444453A)
Regarding claim 15, Pobanz discloses
A patch array antenna for a portable stable low-mass microwave radiometer for measuring microwaves in the spectral range between l and 300 GHz, the patch array antenna being configured for connection to a radiometer electronics (“The focal plane array 10 includes a plurality of radiometer pixels 100” [Col.4, ll.40-41]), the patch array antenna comprising(FIG.1 Part 10), at least one patch array that includes: a patch substrate layer as in the form of a printed circuit board of a dielectric materials a plurality of printed patches printed in a pattern on a front side surface of the patch substrate layers(“The antenna carrying layer 130 comprises a dielectric layer 132 upon which an antenna element 131 has been printed.” [Col.7, ll.1-3]) […]; a ground conductor layer, layer (“FIG. 2 shows a ground plane 133 provided by a metal layer deposited on an encapsulation layer 140” [Col.7, ll.11-13] & Fig.2 Part 122][…], and a connector line connected to the striplines and fed through the patch substrate layer and through the ground conductor layer into an RF coaxial connector that is fixed at to a backside of the ground conductor layer (“The RF interconnects may include coaxial vias,” [Col.6, ll.31-32]), wherein the RF coaxial connector is configured to be directly without detour connected via cables with the radiometer electronics (“ a radiometer MMIC 121, and a radiometer processor integrated circuit 111”[Col.5, ll.2-3]).
Pobanz does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the patches are interconnected via inset-feeds or where the conductor and substrate layers form an airgap. Lalezari discloses the patch array wherein,
striplines printed on the front side surface of the patch substrate layer (“The line feed element 121 is affixed to a top face of the radiator layer” [Col.7, ll.29-30]), wherein the plurality of printed patches are interconnected by the striplines, and wherein each of the printed patches, is connected via an inset-feed (“a feed pin 117” [Col.7, ll.6]) to the striplines (FIG.7C, Part 210) […] fixed to the backside of the patch substrate layer at a defined distance so as to form an air gap between the backside of the patch substrate layer and a front side of the ground conductor layer, wherein the air gap is formed by a plurality of individual single spacers (FIG.4A Parts 103, 107 and 110).
Lalezari teaches in the same field of patch antenna structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pobanz with the teachings of Lalezari to incorporate the features of interconnected patches via inset-feeds and an airgap between the conductor and substrate layers so as to gain the advantage of improving antenna efficiency [Col.1, Par.7, Lalezari]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 16, Pobanz as modified by Lalezari discloses all of the limitations of claim 15. Pobanz fails to set forth the patch array antenna of claim 16. Lalezari discloses the radar system wherein, the air gap between the patch substrate layer and the ground conductor layer is between 5 and 9 mm (“The support posts 105 can be manufactured to be less than 4 millimeters in height, “ [Col.6, ll.8-9]).
Lalezari teaches in the same field of patch antenna structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pobanz with the teachings of Lalezari to incorporate the feature a range of possible air gab values so as to gain the advantage of reducing conductor losses [Col.1, Par.7, Lalezari]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 17, Pobanz as modified by Lalezari discloses all of the limitations of claim 15. Pobanz fails to set forth the patch array antenna of claim 17. Lalezari discloses the radar system wherein, the single spacers are made of electrically insulating materials (“ the inverted microstrip antenna 101 comprises a radiator layer 106 that includes a thin substrate layer 107 made of a dielectric material” [Col.4, ll.20-22] & “ the support posts 105 may be integral with the radiator layer 106” [Col.4, ll.46-48]) and are connected by connection means between patch substrate layer and the ground conductor layer (“The substrate layer 107 may be joined to the support posts 105 by any one of several different bonding means including elastic adhesive, clamps, screws, springs, or a support frame.” [Col. 10, ll.4-8])
Lalezari teaches in the same field of patch antenna structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pobanz with the teachings of Lalezari to incorporate the feature of single spacers made of insulating materials so as to gain the advantage of improving bandwidth [Col.8, ll.54-56, Lalezari]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 18, Pobanz as modified by Lalezari discloses all of the limitations of claim 17. Pobanz discloses the patch array antenna wherein, the electrically insulating materials include at least one of silicone and polytetrafluorethylene (“one or more receptacle layers positioned on top of the silicon wafer“ [Col.3, ll.54-55]).
Regarding claim 19, Pobanz as modified by Lalezari discloses all of the limitations of claim 17. Pobanz fails to set forth the patch array antenna of claim 19. Lalezari discloses the radar system wherein,
the connection means are electrically insulating materials (“The affixing step may be accomplished, for example, by means of an elastic adhesive or glue having suitable bonding and dielectric characteristics.” [Col.9, ll.15-17]).
Lalezari teaches in the same field of patch antenna structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pobanz with the teachings of Lalezari to incorporate the feature of insulating connection means so as to gain the advantage of improving antenna efficiency [Col.1, Par.7, Lalezari]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 21, Pobanz as modified by Lalezari discloses all of the limitations of claim 15. Pobanz discloses the patch array antenna wherein,
the ground conductor layer is either a printed circuit board that includes a grounding metal layer or a metal plate (“ FIG. 2 shows a ground plane 133 provided by a metal layer deposited on an encapsulation layer 140.” [Col.7, ll.11-13]).
Regarding claim 24, Pobanz as modified by Lalezari discloses all of the limitations of claim 15. Pobanz discloses the patch array antenna wherein,
The patch array antenna according to claim 15, wherein a temperature sensor is attached to the at least one patch array and connected via cable to the radiometer electronics (“and a temperature reference 125.” [Col.7, ll.66-67]).
Regarding claim 31, Pobanz as modified by Lalezari discloses all of the limitations of claim 15. Pobanz fails to set forth the patch array antenna of claim 31. Lalezari discloses the radar system wherein, impedances of the printed patches, the inset-feeds, the striplines, the connector line, and the RF coaxial connector are matched (“ it is important that the interconnections between circuit elements be impedance matched “ [Col.7, ll.55-56])
Regarding claim 32, Pobanz as modified by Lalezari discloses all of the limitations of claim 15. Pobanz fails to set forth the patch array antenna of claim 32. Lalezari discloses the radar system wherein, the stripline run symmetrically to the RF coaxial connector that is centered, so that feed length to each of the printed patches is equal (FIG.7c, Part.210).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pobanz(US6828556B2) modified by Lalezari(US5444453A) and further in view of Diaz(US20190125420A1).
Regarding claim 20, Pobanz as modified by Lalezari discloses all of the limitations of claim 17. Pobanz and fails to set forth the synthetic polymer screws of claim 19. However, Lalezari discloses wherein,
the spacers are made of electrically insulating materials(“ the inverted microstrip antenna 101 comprises a radiator layer 106 that includes a thin substrate layer 107 made of a dielectric material” [Col.4, ll.20-22] & “ the support posts 105 may be integral with the radiator layer 106” [Col.4, ll.46-48]) and wherein a plurality of screws […] connect the ground conductor layer and the patch substrate layer, the screws being operatively connected with the spacers (“The substrate layer 107 may be joined to the support posts 105 by any one of several different bonding means including elastic adhesive, clamps, screws, springs, or a support frame.” [Col.10, ll.4-8])
Pobanz does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the screws are made of synthetic polymers. Diaz discloses wherein, a plurality of screws of synthetic polymers (“ Synthetic polymer screws are currently available and are an alternative choice to metal screws”[0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to use synthetic polymers for the screw, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Furthermore, An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297,213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982), see MPEP 2144.06.
In the instant case, it appears the apparatus of the cited prior art could use synthetic polymers for the screws as an obvious design choice within the level of ordinary skill. In particular, screws can often be found with a synthetic polymer material, as evidenced by Diaz et al. US 2019/0125420 (esp. c.f. [0006]). It would be obvious to modify the prior art by incorporating such a routine material as a synthetic polymer for the screws for the benefit of modulating the device characteristic using widely known materials. Diaz makes it clear that synthetic polymer screws are a known alternative to screws formed with other metals and may have advantages in multiple environments with respect to corrosion, as an example.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pobanz(US6828556B2) modified by Lalezari(US5444453A) and further in view of Mohammadian(US20120164942A1).
Regarding claim 23, Pobanz as modified by Lalezari discloses all of the limitations of claim 15. Pobanz discloses the patch array antenna wherein, the patch array antenna comprises two identically formed patch arrays each with a patch substrate layer (FIG.3 part 10)
Pobanz does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein airgaps are formed or where the patch arrays are rotated in respect to each other. Similarly to claim 15 lalezari discloses the patch array wherein, an air gaps formed by spacers and ground conductor layer(FIG.4A Parts 103, 107 and 110).
Neither Pobanz nor Lalezari explicitly disclose or limit wherein the patch arrays are rotated in respect to each other. Mohammadian discloses the patch array wherein, at least the patch substrate layer of the patch arrays are rotated relative to each other in such a way that the patterns of the patches on the patch substrate layers are rotated 90 to each other, to enable the simultaneous measurement of differently polarized radiation (“The first patch antenna is rotated 90 degrees in relation to the second patch antenna so that the first and second patch antennas generate orthogonal fields “ [0017]).
Mohammadian teaches in the same field of patch antenna structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pobanz as modified by Lalezari with the teachings of Mohammadian to incorporate the feature of patch arrays that are rotated in respect to each other so as to gain the advantage of improving signal integrity [0004, Mohammadian]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claims 25-28, 30, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pobanz(US6828556B2) modified by Lalezari(US5444453A) and further in view of Buer(US20190305418A1).
Regarding claim 25, Pobanz as modified by Lalezari discloses all of the limitations of claim 15. Pobanz discloses the portable stable low-mass microwave radiometer comprising, at least one patch array antenna according to claim 15 (FIG.1 Part 10), and a radiometer electronics connected to the at least one patch array antenna, the radiometer electronics including radio-frequency components and signal processing components (“ a radiometer MMIC 121, and a radiometer processor integrated circuit 111”[Col.5, ll.2-3]),wherein the radiometer electronics comprises the following components connected in order in a direction of signal transmission: at least one antenna input (“ an antenna element 131 in the antenna carrying layer 130 is coupled to a MMIC 121” [Col.7, ll.63-64]) ,an n-port switch (“FIG.3, Part 126); an isolator (FIG.3, Part 128);a first bandpass filter (“ a band pass filter” [Col.2, l.17]);a first low noise amplifier(“FIG.3 Part 127);[…] a second low noise amplifier[…] (“FIG.3 Part 127); a power detector (FIG.3, Part 128) […] an Analog to Digital Converter(“FIG.3 Part 113), and a computer unit,wherein the at least one antenna input is connected to the at least one patch array antenna (FIG.4 Part 420).
Pobanz discloses a first and second low noise amplifier but does not explicitly disclose the two parts in the order as disclosed in claim 25. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to place the first and second low noise amplifiers in the order disclosed in claim 25, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Further, Pobanz and Lalezari do not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the radiometer includes a second and third bandpass filter or a low pass filter. However, Buer discloses a second and third bandpass filter as well as a low pass filter (“The third bandpass filter 235-u” [0085], “The second bandpass filter 235-t” [0085] & “components including high- and low-pass filters” [0089])
Buer teaches in the same field of patch antenna structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pobanz as modified by Lalezari with the teachings of Buer to incorporate the features of a second and third bandpass filter as well as a low pass filter so as to reduce antenna size [0015, Buer]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 26, Pobanz as modified by Lalezari further modified by Buer discloses all of the limitations of claim 25. Pobanz discloses the patch array antenna wherein, to the n-port switch an inverted LNA and active cold load with an LNA termination are placed and connected (FIG.3 part 125)
Regarding claim 27, Pobanz as modified by Lalezari further modified by Buer discloses all of the limitations of claim 25. Pobanz discloses the patch array antenna wherein, the power detector is a square law power detector (FIG.3 Part 128)
Regarding claim 28, Pobanz as modified by Lalezari further modified by Buer discloses all of the limitations of claim 26. Pobanz discloses the patch array antenna wherein,
a first matched load connected to the n-port switch and the active cold load are equipped with temperature sensors for calibration purpose (FIG.3 Part 125).
Regarding claim 30, Pobanz as modified by Lalezari further modified by Buer discloses all of the limitations of claim 26. Pobanz discloses the patch array antenna wherein,
wherein a temperature sensor is attached to each patch array and/or to the first calibration matched load (FIG.3 Part 125). and/or to the inverted LNA and active cold load for calibration purpose (FIG.3 part 127).
Regarding claim 34, Pobanz as modified by Lalezari further modified by Buer discloses all of the limitations of claim 25. Pobanz discloses the patch array antenna wherein, the first bandpass filter (“ a band pass filter” [Col.2, l.17]) is connected before any low noise amplifiers in the direction of signal transmission(“FIG.3 Part 127)
Pobanz discloses a first bandpass filter and low noise amplifiers but does not explicitly disclose the two parts in the order as disclosed in claim 34. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to place a first bandpass filter and low noise amplifiers in the order disclosed in claim 34, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pobanz(US6828556B2) modified by Lalezari(US5444453A) and further in view of Buer(US20190305418A1) and further in view of SHARAWI(US20150349421A1).
Regarding claim 29, Pobanz as modified by Lalezari further modified by Buer discloses all of the limitations of claim 25. Pobanz, Lalezari, and Buer fail to expressly teach the n-port switch is a four port switch. However, Sharawi discloses,
wherein two antenna inputs for two patch arrays are provided at the electronics and the n-port switch is a four port switch (“The final radiation pattern (beam) generated from this configuration will be switched to four directions based on which input port has been activated” [0040]).
Specifically, while the cited art of Buer, Mohammadijan, and Lalezarji does not expressly teach four port switch, please N.B., Buer, Mohammadijan, and Lalezarji does disclose multiple inputs for multiple patch antennas and a plurality of patch antennas (please see claim 25 rejection above). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use four port switch design, since the Applicant has not disclosed that a four port switch solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with any number of port switches. In the instant case, it appears the apparatus of the cited prior art could use four port switch as an obvious design choice within the level of ordinary skill. In particular, a four port switch is routine in the art, as evidenced by Sharawi US 2015/0349421 esp. c.f. fig.2 and paragraph 0040, which teaches input port typically is in powers of 2, i.e. 4x4, etc.
It would be obvious to modify the prior art by incorporating the recited number of port switches for the benefit of modulating the device characteristic using a varying number of switches; and in particular, having 4 port switch is a routine number of port switches as port arrays typically comprise powers of 2, i.e. 4x4, as taught by Sharawi fig.2 and [0040]. Sharawi makes it clear that a range of port switches such as a 4 port switch configuration has advantages in antenna array design and may be extended to other configurations as different applications require.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pobanz(US6828556B2) modified by Lalezari(US5444453A) and further in view of Buer(US20190305418A1) and further in view of Blauert(US11664585B2).
Regarding claim 33, Pobanz as modified by Lalezari further modified by Buer discloses all of the limitations of claim 25. Pobanz, Lalezari, and Buer fail to expressly teach measuring microwaves in the spectral range disclosed in claim 33. However, Blauert discloses wherein, the microwave radiometer is configured for measuring microwaves in the spectral range between 1400 and 1427 MHZ (“The predetermined range of frequencies includes frequencies ranging from 400 MHz to 12 Gigahertz GHz.” [Col.20, ll.48-50]).
Blauert teaches in the same field of patch antennas. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pobanz as modified by Lalezari and further modified by Buer with the teachings of Blauert to incorporate the features of measuring microwaves in the spectral range between 1400 and 1427 MHZ so as to improve resolution [Col.16, ll.56-57]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s Disclosure.
Ouadiaa (Microstrip Patch Antenna Array and its Applications: a Survey) is considered analogous art to the instant application as it discloses in [Pg.26, Par.3] “ Figure2 shows an example for Microstrip Patch Antenna Array and theirs gains, when the element number increases, the HPBW (Half Power Beam Width) becomes narrow and the gain becomes high.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CLAYTON PAUL RIDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2771. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday ET.
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, Jack Keith can be reached on (571) 272-6878. 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.
/C.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/PETER M POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643