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
This office action is in response to the communication filed 4/2/2026.
Amendments to claims 1,3-5, 10-12, filed 4/2/2026, are acknowledged and accepted.
Withdrawal of claims 6-7, 13-14, 18-20 filed 10/16/2025, remains in effect.
Due to the amendments to the claims, the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are now withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons given as follows:
On pgs. 12-16 of the Remarks, Applicant’s main argument appears to be that
“McGrath does not teach a single microlens facing a single pixel having a phase profile having a plurality of convex regions” – Remarks pg. 15,
as it pertains to the newly amended claim 1. The arguments are not particularly clear, however -- with rather non-specific and underdeveloped assertions, such as the above, obscuring or neglecting relevant facts of record to the detriment of efficient prosecution.
Nonetheless, Examiner attempts to navigate the perceived argument by first noting/ reiterating that the previous rejection had already cited Lee’s microlens layers 270 – each microlens of which corresponds to, or faces, a single (unit) pixel 220 apiece (refer again to ¶ 17C of the 1/2/2026 Non-Final Rejection). Noted also is Applicant’s acknowledgement that
“the Examiner appears to be alleging that [McGrath’s] microlenses 130a, 130b, 130c, and 130d would provide a phase profile having convex regions” – Remarks pg. 15,
– as well as Applicant’s acknowledgement that
“In McGrath, the four microlenses 130a, 130b, 130c, and 130d […] respectively correspond to a pixel 90” – Remarks pg. 15,
these being some of the facts used to map the claimed pixel directly onto McGrath’s supercell 110 (of pixels 90), such that the combined microlens 130(a-d) may correspond to, or face, a single pixel (= supercell 110) (see, e.g., ¶ 22 of the 1/2/2026 Non-Final Rejection).
Considering the above facts of record as they pertain to Applicant’s argument, it would thus appear that Applicant’s only valid/remaining protest would be that the prior art’s plurality of convex regions are not assembled under a “single” microlens – though Applicant has neglected to clearly indicate as much or to express this issue in as simple or particular terms.
Nonetheless, proper condensation/consideration of the relevant details identified above – and of this single isolated issue – should render rather clear the fact that such basic protest is based on little more than simple matters of nomenclature or grouping, for which Applicant’s arguments are ultimately found to be unconvincing.
After all, it makes little difference whether one chooses to define a single microlens having a plurality of convex regions, or alternatively/equivalently, to consider the union of multiple simple/convex microlenses as forming a greater microlens with a plurality of convex regions. As far as Examiner is concerned, the distinction here is largely semantic – not one of any meaningful structural/functional consequence, nor of any patentable substance otherwise.
Next, Examiner does acknowledge Applicant’s broader statement that
“In McGrath, the four microlenses 130a, 130b, 130c, and 130d are individual lenses that are spaced apart from each other and respectively correspond to a pixel 90.” – Remarks pg. 15
However, Examiner finds this to be a plain mischaracterization of McGrath’s disclosure – as Applicant appears to have erroneously overinterpreted some perceived spacing between microlenses 130(a-d) in FIG. 8 (at least as best understood by Examiner, as Applicant has not clearly articulated the rationale supporting their position) and improperly elevated such arbitrary/artistic minutiae, while neglecting to consider the actual textual disclosure, or even FIG. 6 (as annotated/cited alongside FIG. 8 in the prior rejection for clarity).
Indeed, McGrath never once describes microlenses 130(a-d) as being “spaced apart”. On the contrary – with respect to an initial embodiment (FIGs. 6+7), for which McGrath establishes much of the basic structure that remains applicable to the later embodiment (FIGs. (6+)8) relied on for the rejection, McGrath quite clearly states that
“microlenses abut each other [...] with respect to an imaginary y-axis of the supercell 110” – McGrath pg. 2,
i.e. such that microlenses 130(a,c) are in direct edge-to-edge contact with 130(b,d) at the horizontal center (x=0, y-axis) of FIG. 7’s supercell 110 – where Applicant might have similarly misjudged there to be any meaningful evidence of microlenses being “spaced apart”.
Indeed also, cursory inspection of FIG. 6 confirms for us that McGrath’s microlenses 130(A-D) abut one another.
It would thus appear that Applicant’s interpretation of these matters are simply incorrect, as they are largely inconsistent with the evidence remaining in McGrath’s disclosure. Consequently, Applicant seems to have overlooked the basic fact that McGrath’s lenses do physically adjoin one another, producing a combined lens that may reasonably read on the “single” (micro)lens with a plurality of convex regions that Applicant has argued/claimed.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-10, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20170170216 A1, hereinafter “Lee”) in view of McGrath and Wake (US 20060273239 A1, hereinafter “McGrath”).
[Examiner’s note regarding claims 1-4:
In conventional optics, it is well known that phase shifting of light is directly related to the optical path length, i.e. the thickness of a medium through which light takes its path. For the plano-surface (micro)lenses illustrated in both Lee and McGrath cited below, the phase profile of transmitted light will simply reflect the basic topography of the lens’s curved surface.]
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses (see FIGs. 7-9 and ¶s 67-89 regarding image sensor 200a, serving as a base embodiment that subsequent embodiments provide slight variations of – including image sensor 200h detailed in FIG. 16 and ¶s 109-115 and sharing many reference numerals in common) an optical sensor (image sensor 200h) comprising:
a sensor substrate (semiconductor layer 210) comprising a plurality of pixels (unit pixels 220) configured to sense incident light (¶ 70: “unit pixels 220 may include at least two photoelectric converters… first and second photoelectric converters 230L and 230R may generate photoelectrons in response to externally incident light.”);
a filter layer (color filter layer 260) provided on the sensor substrate (semiconductor layer 210) and comprising a plurality of filters respectively corresponding to the plurality of pixels (unit pixels 220), the plurality of filters being configured to transmit light of a certain wavelength band (¶ 81: “color filter layer 260 may be a red filter, a green filter, or a blue filter in each unit pixel 220”); and
a nanophotonic microlens array (ML (microlens) layer 270) provided on the filter layer (color filter layer 260) and comprising a plurality of nanophotonic microlenses, each of the plurality of nanophotonic microlenses facing a corresponding pixel (unit pixel 220) among the plurality of pixels (unit pixels 220) and being configured to focus incident light (e.g. light L3, L4 in FIG. 9) on the corresponding pixel (unit pixel 220),
wherein each of the plurality of pixels (unit pixels 220) comprises a deep trench isolation (DTI) structure (first/second device isolation layers 250/255) and a plurality of photosensitive cells (first/second photoelectric converters 230L/230R) that are electrically separated from each other by the DTI structure (first/second device isolation layers 250/255) and are two-dimensionally arranged (plan view shown in FIG. 16) in a first direction and a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, each of the plurality of photosensitive cells (first/second photoelectric converters 230L/230R) being configured to independently sense light,
wherein each of the plurality of nanophotonic microlenses (of ML layer 270) is formed such that light (e.g. light L3, L4) transmitted through each nanophotonic microlens (of ML layer 270) has a phase profile (i.e. surface geometry; see Examiner’s note above) having a convex region and is formed to collect incident light on each of a plurality of regions, which are spaced apart from centers of the plurality of photosensitive cells (first/second photoelectric converters 230L/230R) included in the corresponding pixel (unit pixel 220), toward the DTI structure (first/second device isolation layers 250/255),
wherein a portion of incident light (e.g. light L4) transmitted through each of the plurality of nanophotonic microlenses is incident on the DTI structure (first/second device isolation layers 250/255), and
PNG
media_image1.png
971
1532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 9 of Lee is annotated to highlight various features)](Regarding items E and F above, see also the annotated FIG. 9 below.)
Lee does not disclose:
wherein each nanophotonic microlens has a phase profile having a plurality of convex regions
wherein each of the plurality of nanophotonic microlenses is a single convex lens comprising a plurality of convex lens-shaped portions partially overlapping each other with respect to a center point of the respective nanophotonic microlens.
Lee and McGrath commonly relate to image sensor microlens/pixel array structures.
McGrath discloses (see FIGs. 6-7 and ¶s 18-19 regarding asymmetric and abutting microlenses 130(a-d) that combine to form a (micro)lens structure which is geometrically accommodating of an underlying plurality of photosensitive areas 100. See also FIG. 8 and ¶ 20 regarding an alternative yet geometrically pertinent embodiment of such microlens structure):
wherein each nanophotonic microlens (i.e. each combined microlens 130(a-d)) has a phase profile (i.e. surface geometry; see Examiner’s note above) having a plurality of convex regions
wherein each of the plurality of nanophotonic microlenses (i.e. each combined microlens 130(a-d)) is a single convex lens comprising a plurality of convex lens-shaped portions (microlens 130(a-d)) partially overlapping each other with respect to a center point of the respective nanophotonic microlens (i.e. the combined microlens 130(a-d)).
(See also the annotated/combined FIGs. 6+8 below.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Lee and McGrath in order to accommodate different photosensor/pixel geometries and provide them with consistent distributions of light (McGrath ¶ 19).
PNG
media_image3.png
987
1162
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIGs. 6 and 8 of McGrath are annotated to highlight various features.)]Regarding claim 2, modified Lee discloses the optical sensor of claim 1.
McGrath further discloses (see annotated FIG. 6+8 above) wherein each of the plurality of nanophotonic microlenses (i.e. each combined microlens 130(a-d)) is formed such that a number of convex regions of the phase profile of the light transmitted through each of the plurality of nanophotonic microlenses (i.e. such that a number of convex regions in the surface geometry of combined microlens 130(a-d); see Examiner’s note above) is equal to a number of photosensitive cells (photosensitive areas 100) included in the pixel (supercell 110) corresponding to each of the plurality of nanophotonic microlenses (i.e. each combined microlens 130(a-d)).
Regarding claim 3, modified Lee discloses the optical sensor of claim 1.
McGrath further discloses (see annotated FIG. 6+8 above) wherein each of the plurality of nanophotonic microlenses (i.e. each combined microlens 130(a-d)) is formed such that light transmitted through a first region of each of the plurality of nanophotonic microlenses (i.e. each combined microlens 130(a-d)) corresponding to the DTI structure has a phase profile of a region (i.e. such that the surface geometry of combined microlens 130(a-d) has a first region; see Examiner’s note above) in which the plurality of convex regions overlap each other, and light transmitted through a second region that is a remaining region other than the first region in each of the plurality of nanophotonic microlenses has a phase profile (i.e. such that the surface geometry of combined microlens 130(a-d) has a second region other than the first region; see Examiner’s note above) having the plurality of convex regions.
Regarding claim 4, modified Lee discloses the optical sensor of claim 1.
McGrath further discloses (see annotated FIG. 6+8 above) wherein each of the plurality of nanophotonic microlenses (i.e. each combined microlens 130(a-d)) is formed such that the plurality of convex regions of the phase profile of the light transmitted through each of the plurality of nanophotonic microlenses (i.e. such that the plurality of convex regions in the surface geometry of each combined microlens 130(a-d); see Examiner’s note above) are symmetrically distributed with respect to a first area of each of the plurality of nanophotonic microlenses (i.e. each combined microlens 130(a-d)) corresponding to the DTI structure.
Regarding claim 8, modified Lee discloses the optical sensor of claim 1.
McGrath further discloses (see annotated FIG. 6+8 above) wherein each of the plurality of nanophotonic microlenses (i.e. each combined microlens 130(a-d)) comprises a convex lens structure having a plurality of convex portions.
Regarding claim 9, modified Lee discloses the optical sensor of claim 8.
McGrath further discloses (see annotated FIG. 6+8 above) wherein a number of convex portions included in each of the plurality of nanophotonic microlenses (i.e. each combined microlens 130(a-d)) is equal to a number of photosensitive cells (photosensitive areas 100) included in each pixel (supercell 110) corresponding to each of the plurality of nanophotonic microlenses (i.e. each combined microlens 130(a-d)).
Regarding claim 10, modified Lee discloses the optical sensor of claim 8.
McGrath further discloses (see annotated FIG. 6+8 above):
wherein a first region of each of the plurality of nanophotonic microlenses (i.e. each combined microlens 130(a-d)) corresponding to the DTI structure is concave, and the plurality of convex portions are provided in a second region that is a remaining region other than the first region of each of the plurality of nanophotonic microlenses (i.e. each combined microlens 130(a-d)), and
wherein the plurality of convex portions of each of the plurality of nanophotonic microlenses (i.e. each combined microlens 130(a-d)) are symmetrically provided with respect to the first region of each of the plurality of nanophotonic microlenses (i.e. each combined microlens 130(a-d)) corresponding to the DTI structure.
Regarding claim 12, modified Lee discloses the optical sensor of claim 1.
McGrath further discloses (see annotated FIG. 6+8 above) wherein a number of the plurality of convex lens-shaped portions (microlens 130(a-d)) corresponds to a number of photosensitive cells (photosensitive areas 100) included in the pixel (supercell 110) corresponding to the nanophotonic microlens (i.e. the combined microlens 130(a-d)).
Regarding claim 15, modified Lee discloses the optical sensor of claim 1.
Lee further discloses (see FIG. 7, ¶s 81-82: “the color filter layer 260 may be a red filter, a green filter, or a blue filter in each unit pixel 220”, “the color filter layer 260 may be a cyan filter, a magenta filter, or a yellow filter”)
wherein the plurality of pixels (unit pixels 220) comprise a plurality of first pixels (unit pixels 220) each comprising a plurality of first photosensitive cells (first/second photoelectric converters 230L/230R) configured to sense light of a first wavelength band (e.g. red wavelengths of ~620-750 nm) and a plurality of second pixels (unit pixels 220) each comprising a plurality of second photosensitive cells (first/second photoelectric converters 230L/230R) configured to sense light of a second wavelength band (e.g. blue wavelengths of ~450-495 nm) that is shorter than the first wavelength band,
wherein the filter layer (color filter layer 260) comprises a plurality of first filters (of color filter layer 260) respectively corresponding to the plurality of first pixels (unit pixels 220) and configured to transmit light of the first wavelength band (e.g. red wavelengths), and a plurality of second filters (of color filter layer 260) respectively corresponding to the plurality of second pixels (unit pixels 220) and configured to transmit light of the second wavelength band (e.g. blue wavelengths), and
wherein the nanophotonic microlens array (ML layer 270) comprises:
a plurality of first nanophotonic microlenses (of ML layer 270) corresponding to the plurality of first filters (of color filter layer 260), respectively, and configured to focus light on the plurality of first pixels (unit pixels 220), and
a plurality of second nanophotonic microlenses (of ML layer 270) corresponding to the plurality of second filters (of color filter layer 260), respectively, and configured to focus light on the plurality of second pixels (unit pixels 220).
Claims 5, 11, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of McGrath, as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and in further view of Boettiger and Li (US 20070121212 A1, hereinafter Boettiger).
[Examiner’s note regarding claims 5 and 16:
In conventional optics, it is well known that phase shifting of light is directly related to the optical path length, i.e. the thickness of a medium through which light takes its path. For the plano-surface (micro)lenses illustrated in the below-cited Lee, McGrath, and Boettiger, the phase profile of transmitted light will simply reflect the basic topography of the lens’s curved surface.]
Regarding claim 5, modified Lee discloses the optical sensor of claim 1.
McGrath further discloses (see annotated FIG. 6+8 above) wherein each of the plurality of nanophotonic microlenses (i.e. each combined microlens 130(a-d)) is formed such that a phase profile of light transmitted through a region (i.e. such that a region in the surface geometry of combined microlens 130(a-d); see Examiner’s note above) corresponding to the center points of the plurality of photosensitive cells (photosensitive areas 100) of each of the plurality of pixels (supercells 110) comprises a plurality of maximum points. (As shown in the annotated FIG. 6+8 of McGrath – provided in regards to claim 1 above – the optical axes of the photosensitive areas 100 (i.e. center points of the photosensitive cells) are apparently aligned with the optical axes of microlenses 130(a-d) (and hence their maxima, or the associated maximum points in the phase profile of light; see Examiner’s note above).)
Modified Lee does not disclose the region being a third region corresponding to a region between the DTI structure and the center points of the plurality of photosensitive cells. (However, Examiner notes that merely reshaping the microlens of Lee in view of McGrath to have maxima shifted closer to one another (i.e. closer to the DTI structures) automatically/correspondingly places the maximum points in a third region corresponding to a region between the DTI structure and the center points of the plurality of photosensitive cells, satisfying the current claim.)
Lee and Boettiger commonly relate to image sensor microlens/pixel array structures.
Boettiger discloses (see ¶ 51 and FIG. 8 – included in the combined/annotated FIG. 6(McGrath)+8(Boettiger) below) peripheral microlenses (87, 88) formed with tilted focal angle and with maxima shifted closer to one another, relative to underlying photosensitive cells (photosensors). In combination with the above-cited art, Boettiger thus provides sufficient support for the region being a third region corresponding to a region between the DTI structure and the center points of the plurality of photosensitive cells.
PNG
media_image5.png
851
1430
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox ((Left panel) FIG 6 of McGrath is annotated to highlight the alignment between microlens maxima and photosensitive cells (photosensitive areas 100)(Right panel) FIG. 8 of Boettiger is annotated to illustrate how peripheral/non-central microlenses are formed to have maxima shifted closer to one another relative to the photosensitive cells (photosensors). In combination with the Lee and McGrath, such teachings enable image sensor structure meeting limitations of claims 5 and 11.)]
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Lee with teachings of Boettiger to focus low-angle light on underlying photosensors and prevent loss of image information (Boettiger ¶ 51).
Regarding claim 11, modified Lee discloses the optical sensor of claim 8.
McGrath further discloses (see annotated FIG. 6+8 above) wherein each of the plurality of nanophotonic microlenses (i.e. each combined microlens 130(a-d)) is formed such that maximum points of the plurality of convex portions are provided in a region corresponding to the center points of the plurality of photosensitive cells (photosensitive areas 100) of each of the plurality of pixels (supercells 110). (As shown in the annotated FIG. 6+8 of McGrath – provided in regards to claim 1 above – the optical axes of the photosensitive areas 100 (i.e. center points of the photosensitive cells) are apparently aligned with the optical axes of the microlenses 130(a-d) (and hence the maximum points of the convex portion).)
Modified Lee does not disclose the region being a third region corresponding to a region between the DTI structure and the center points of the plurality of photosensitive cells. (However, Examiner notes that merely reshaping the microlens of Lee in view of McGrath to have maxima shifted closer to one another (i.e. closer to the DTI structures) automatically/correspondingly places the maximum points in a third region corresponding to a region between the DTI structure and center points of the plurality of photosensitive cells, which immediately satisfies the current claim)
Lee and Boettiger commonly relate to image sensor microlens/pixel array structures.
Boettiger discloses (see ¶ 51 and annotated FIG. 6(McGrath)+8(Boettiger) above) peripheral microlenses (87, 88) formed with tilted focal angle and with maxima shifted closer to one another, relative to underlying photosensitive cells (photosensors). In combination with the above-cited art, Boettiger thus provides sufficient support for the region being a third region corresponding to a region between the DTI structure and the center points of the plurality of photosensitive cells.
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Lee with teachings of Boettiger to focus low-angle light on underlying photosensors and prevent loss of image information (Boettiger ¶ 51).
Regarding claim 16, modified Lee discloses the optical sensor of claim 15.
McGrath further discloses (see annotated FIG. 6+8 above) wherein the plurality of first nanophotonic microlenses (combined microlens 130(a-d)) and the plurality of second nanophotonic microlenses (combined microlens 130(a-d)) are formed such that a plurality of second convex regions are included in a phase profile of light transmitted through each of the plurality of second nanophotonic microlenses (i.e. such that second convex regions are included in the surface geometry of combined microlens 130(a-d); see Examiner’s note above) and a plurality of first convex regions are included in a phase profile of light transmitted through each of the plurality of first nanophotonic microlenses (i.e. such that first convex regions are included in the surface geometry of combined microlens 130(a-d); see Examiner’s note above).
Modified Lee does not disclose that the plurality of second convex regions are more convex than the plurality of first convex regions.
Lee and Boettiger commonly relate to image sensor microlens/pixel array structures.
Boettiger discloses (see FIGs. 1-2, ¶s 42-44) that the plurality of second convex regions (i.e. of microlens 12-G, associated with green/shorter wavelengths) are more convex than the plurality of first convex regions (i.e. of microlens 12-R-, associated with red wavelengths).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Lee with teachings of Boettiger to compensate for different absorption depths for each wavelength of light (Boettiger ¶ 43).
Regarding claim 17, modified Lee discloses the optical sensor of claim 15.
McGrath further discloses (see annotated FIG. 6+8 above) wherein each of the plurality of first nanophotonic microlenses (combined microlens 130(a-d)) comprises a first convex lens structure having a plurality of first convex portions, each of the plurality of second nanophotonic microlenses (combined microlens 130(a-d)) comprises a second convex lens structure having a plurality of second convex portions
Modified Lee does not disclose wherein the plurality of second convex portions are formed to be more convex than the plurality of first convex portions.
Lee and Boettiger commonly relate to image sensor microlens/pixel array structures.
Boettiger discloses (see FIGs. 1-2, ¶s 42-44) wherein the plurality of second convex portions (i.e. of microlens 12-G, associated with green/shorter wavelengths) are formed to be more convex than the plurality of first convex portions (i.e. of microlens 12-R-, associated with red wavelengths).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Lee with teachings of Boettiger to compensate for the different absorption depths for each wavelength of light (Boettiger ¶ 43).
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 WAI-GA D. HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM - 6PM E.T..
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/W.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights