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
The amendment filed 04/07/2026 is acknowledged and entered. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-14, 29, and 31-32 are pending.
Claim 3 has been amended to overcome the previous claim objection, therefore the previous claim objection of claim 3 is withdrawn.
Claim 9 has been amended to overcome the previous claim objection, therefore the previous claim objection of claim 9 is withdrawn.
Claim 4 has been cancelled, therefore, the previous drawing objection is moot.
Claim 4 has been cancelled, therefore, the previous 112(b) rejection of claim 4 is moot.
Claim 7 has been amended to overcome the previous 112(b) rejection, therefore, the previous 112(b) rejection of claim 7 is withdrawn.
Claim 11 has been amended to overcome the previous 112(b) rejection, therefore, the previous 112(b) rejection of claim 11 is withdrawn.
Claim 25 has been cancelled, therefore, the previous 112(b) and 112(d) rejection of claim 25 is moot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11, filed 04/07/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of McManus et al (“Application of quantum cascade lasers to high-precision atmosphere trace gas measurements”, November 2010, Optical Engineering 49 (11). NPL disclosed in the IDS dated 03/20/203) in view of Narusawa (JP 2017103271 A which was disclosed in the IDS dated 03/20/2023. Portions of an attached translation are cited below). Please see detailed rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 is dependent on claim 10, however, claim 10 has been cancelled. Therefore, it is unclear what claim is claim 11 dependent on. It would appear that claim 11 should be dependent on claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
See MPEP 608.01(n) V – “If the base claim has been canceled, a claim which is directly or indirectly dependent thereon should be rejected as incomplete.” Claim 11 depends on a cancelled claim (claim 10) and therefore, fails to meet the requirements of 35 USC 112(d) because it fails to contain a reference to a claim previously set forth.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 3, 5-8, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McManus et al (“Application of quantum cascade lasers to high-precision atmospheric trace gas measurements”, November 2010, Optical Engineering 49 (11). NPL disclosed in the IDS dated 03/20/2023) in view of Narusawa (JP 2017103271 A which was disclosed in the IDS dated 03/20/2023. Portions of an attached translation are cited below).
Regarding Claim 1, McManus et al teaches a gas analyzer apparatus using laser absorption spectroscopy (Abstract) wherein the gas analyser comprises a multipass cell (Fig. 3: multipass cell (MPC)), at least two lasers (Fig. 3: two QCL/dual QCL), and a laser housing (Fig. 3: QCLs are each in a housing), wherein the at least two lasers are mounted in their own individual laser housing (shown in annotated Fig. 3 below where each QCL is in their own laser housing) and wherein each laser housing comprises a main body defining an interior space for receiving the lasers (QCL housing shown in Fig. 3 has a main body defining an interior space for receiving the laser), wherein each laser housing and multipass cell (Fig. 3: MPC) are arranged within an outer housing of the gas analyser apparatus (shown in annotated Fig. 3 below where each QCL housing is within an outer housing), wherein the multipass cell is located outside of the laser housing (shown in Fig. 3 where the MPC is outside of the QCL laser housing).
PNG
media_image1.png
538
1092
media_image1.png
Greyscale
McManus et al appears to be silent to the at least two lasers are mounted in the laser housing and wherein the laser housing comprises a monolithic main body defining an interior space for receiving the lasers and a lid for sealingly closing the main body, wherein the main body comprises windows in the shape of through-openings arranged in a sidewall of the main body, wherein each window is assigned to one of the at least two lasers.
Narusawa, related to a laser light module and device, does teach that the at least two lasers are mounted in the laser housing (shown in Figs. 3(a) and 1(a) where lasers 101R, 101G, and 101B are mounted inside case 105 [0014-0015]) and wherein the laser housing comprises a monolithic main body defining an interior space for receiving the laser (Fig. 1(a) and 1(b) shows that element 105 itself is one piece) and a lid for sealingly closing the main body (Fig. 1(a): lid portion 107 closes case 105), wherein the main body (Figs. 3(a) and 1(a): case 105) comprises windows (Figs. 1(a) and 3(a): window portions 108) in the shape of through-openings arranged in one sidewall of the main body, (shown in Fig. 1(a) and Fig. 3(a) where there would necessarily be through-openings in the side wall of case 105 to accommodate window portion 108) wherein each window is assigned to one laser (shown in Fig. 3(a) where sections of the window portion 108 (shown in Fig. 1(a) where there are three separate circular windows) are assigned to a red light source 101R, a green light source 101G, and a blue light source 101B; [0014] and [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify McManus et al so that the at least two lasers are mounted in the laser housing and wherein the laser housing comprises a monolithic main body defining an interior space for receiving the lasers and a lid for sealingly closing the main body, wherein the main body comprises windows in the shape of through-openings arranged in a sidewall of the main body, wherein each window is assigned to one of the at least two lasers, as disclosed by Narusawa. The advantage to the above-mentioned configuration is that heat from the plurality of semiconductor laser diodes is effectively dissipated and all the semiconductor laser diodes are sealed and do not make contact with components such as epoxy resin which can adversely affect semiconductor laser diodes ([0044] from Narusawa). Therefore, it is possible to obtained a laser module with high reliability and long life while preventing degradation and maintaining high quality of a compact semiconductor laser light source module that is capable of simultaneously outputting laser light of a plurality of wavelengths ([0044] from Narusawa).
Regarding Claim 3, McManus et al modified by Narusawa teaches the gas analyzer apparatus according to claim 1.
McManus et al modified by Narusawa further teaches that the at two lasers are at least one of QCLs (Quantum Cascade Lasers) (McManus et al, Fig. 3: QCLs), ICLs (Interband Cascade Lasers), TDLs (Tuneable Diode Lasers), or Dual-color QCLs.
Regarding Claim 5, McManus et al modified by Narusawa teaches the gas analyzer apparatus according to claim 1.
McManus et al modified by Narusawa further teaches that the lid (Narusawa, Fig. 1(a) and 1(b): lid 170) is arranged on the top of the main body (Narusawa, shown in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b) where lid 170 is on top of case 105).
Regarding Claim 6, McManus et al modified by Narusawa teaches the gas analyzer apparatus according to claim 1.
McManus et al modified by Narusawa further teaches that the main body (Narusawa, Figs. 1(a) and 1(b): case 105) is milled from one single block (Narusawa, Figs. 1(a) and 1(b) show that case 105 is one piece.).
Regarding Claim 7, McManus et al modified by Narusawa teaches the gas analyzer apparatus according to claim 1.
McManus modified by Narusawa (for claim 1) appears to be silent to at least one of the main body or lid is aluminum.
Narusawa, related to a laser light module and device, does teach that the at least one of the main body is aluminum (Narusawa, [0073]: Housing for laser, which comprises case 105, is formed only with AIN (aluminum nitride) or alumina (Al2O3).) or the lid is aluminum.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify McManus et al combined with Narusawa (for claim 1) so that the at least of the main body or the lid is aluminum, as disclosed by Narusawa. The advantage of having a laser housing made out of AIN or Al2O3 is that these materials are thermally conductive insulating materials which can effectively exhaust heat from the semiconductor laser light source ([0046] from Narusawa).
Regarding Claim 8, McManus et al modified by Narusawa teaches the gas analyzer apparatus according to claim 1.
McManus et al modified by Narusawa further teaches that the main body (Narusawa, Figs. 1(a) or 1(b): case 105) or the lid comprises a port for filling the interior of the housing with an inert gas (Narusawa, [0028]: Inside the case 105, an inert gas such as nitrogen gas or dry air is filled where there would necessarily be a port, or an equivalent, for the inert gas to be filled inside the case 105.).
Regarding Claim 12, McManus et al modified by Narusawa teaches the gas analyzer apparatus according to claim 1.
McManus et al modified by Narusawa further teaches that the main body (Figs. 1(a) and 1(b): case 105) comprises heat-sinks (Fig. 1(a) and 1(b): bottom plate 106 is made of aluminum nitride (AIN) or alumina (Al2O3) which are thermally conductive nonvolatile inorganic materials that effectively are heat sinks.) and wherein each laser is placed on one of the heat-sinks ([0014] and [0044]: Semiconductor laser diodes are mounted onto submounts where the submounts are fixed to the bottom plate 106.).
Regarding Claim 14, McManus et al modified by Narusawa teaches the gas analyzer apparatus according to claim 1.
McManus et al modified by Narusawa further teaches that the multipass cell (McManus et al, astigmatic Herriott multipass absorption cell from page 111124-5, Col. 1, paragraph 2) is an astigmatic Herriot type multipass cell or a nonastigmatic Herriott type cell.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McManus et al (“Application of quantum cascade lasers to high-precision atmospheric trace gas measurements”, November 2010, Optical Engineering 49 (11). NPL disclosed in the IDS dated 03/20/2023) in view of Narusawa (JP 2017103271 A which was disclosed in the IDS dated 03/20/2023. Portions of an attached translation are cited below) and further in view of Saikawa (US 20190013650 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, McManus et al modified by Narusawa teaches the gas analyzer apparatus according to claim 1.
McManus et al modified by Narusawa appears to be silent to a lens mount with at least one lens is mounted on the laser housing at each of these through openings.
Saikawa, related to a laser housing, does teach a lens mount (Fig. 2: where collimate lenses 11 are mounted [0054]) with at least one lens (Fig. 2: collimate lenses 11) is mounted on the laser housing (Fig. 2: laser mount unit 1 which houses semiconductor lasers 10x1-10xm and 10y1-10yn [0033]) at each of these through openings (Fig. 2: through-holes 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify McManus et al combined with Narusawa to incorporate a lens mount with at least one lens is mounted on the laser housing at each of these through openings, as disclosed by Saikawa. The advantage of the above-mentioned configuration is that it can provide a combined-wave laser light source that can adjust the optic axes of the laser light sources and can cut the adjusting cost ([0010] and [0012] from Saikawa).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McManus et al (“Application of quantum cascade lasers to high-precision atmospheric trace gas measurements”, November 2010, Optical Engineering 49 (11). NPL disclosed in the IDS dated 03/20/2023) in view of Narusawa (JP 2017103271 A which was disclosed in the IDS dated 03/20/2023. Portions of an attached translation are cited below) and further in view of Pushkarshy (US 2010/0111122 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, McManus et al modified by Narusawa teaches the gas analyzer apparatus according to claim 8.
McManus et al modified by Narusawa appears to be silent to the port is usable for evacuating the interior of the laser housing prior to filling it with the inert gas.
Pushkarsky, related to a mid-infrared laser source assembly, does teach that the port is usable for evacuating the interior of the laser housing prior to filling it with the inert gas ([0056]: “For example, the sealed laser chamber 248 can be filled with an inert gas, or another type of fluid, or the sealed laser chamber 248 can be subjected to vacuum.” The main body (sealed laser chamber 248 from Fig. 2A) or the lid (Fig. 2B: cover 230) would necessarily have a port or a port equivalent for filling the interior of the housing with an inert gas.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify McManus et al combined with Narusawa so that the port is usable for evacuating the interior of the laser housing prior to filling it with the inert gas, as disclosed by Pushkarshy. The advantage of the above-mentioned method is that a user can vacuum the interior of the sealed laser chamber so that another type of gas or fluid can be filled into the sealed laser chamber to be optimize measurements ([0056] from Pushkarshy).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McManus et al (“Application of quantum cascade lasers to high-precision atmospheric trace gas measurements”, November 2010, Optical Engineering 49 (11). NPL disclosed in the IDS dated 03/20/2023) in view of Narusawa (JP 2017103271 A which was disclosed in the IDS dated 03/20/2023. Portions of an attached translation are cited below) and further in view of Rathjen (US 20090187174 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, McManus et al modified by Narusawa teaches the gas analyzer apparatus according to claim 10.
McManus et al modified by Narusawa further teaches that collimating (Narusawa, [0052]: “The window portion 108 has a lens structure that is selected so as to have a lens structure that collimates the light…”.) or focusing optics are mounted to the main body (Narusawa, shown in Figs. 1(a) and 3(a)) and are assigned to each through-opening (Narusawa, shown in Figs. 1(a) and 3(a)).
McManus et al modified by Narusawa appears to be silent to the collimating or focusing optics are adjustable in x-y-z directions.
Rathjen, related to a laser apparatus, does teach that the collimating or focusing optics (Fig. 1(a): projection lens where the projection lens can be used to adjust the focus [0023]) are adjustable in x-y-z directions ([0023]: “In one embodiment alternative, the optical transmission system 5 and/or the projection lens 3 comprise or comprises moveable lenses in order to also adjust the focus F of the pulsed laser beam L' in the normal direction to the x/y directions (for example along the optical axis z). Depending on the embodiment alternative, the opthalmological device 1 additionally optionally comprises a drive module in order to move the projection lens 3, and hence the focus F, along the x and/or y and/or normal directions.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify McManus et al combined with Narusawa so that the collimating or focusing optics are adjustable in x-y-z directions, as disclosed by Rathjen. The advantage of having the collimating or focusing optics be adjustable in x-y-z directions is that the focus can be adjusted ([0023] from Rathjen).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McManus et al (“Application of quantum cascade lasers to high-precision atmospheric trace gas measurements”, November 2010, Optical Engineering 49 (11). NPL disclosed in the IDS dated 03/20/2023) in view of Narusawa (JP 2017103271 A which was disclosed in the IDS dated 03/20/2023. Portions of an attached translation are cited below) and further in view of Yoon (US 2002/0176466 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, McManus et al modified by Narusawa teaches the gas analyzer apparatus according to claim 12.
McManus et al modified by Narusawa appears to be silent to the heat-sinks are temperature controlled.
Yoon, related to a semiconductor laser device and module, does teach that the heat-sinks are temperature controlled ([0071]: “Generally, a control unit (not shown) controls the Peltier element 58 so as to maintain the temperature of the heat sink 57a constant. The control unit (not shown) also controls the Peltier element 58 so that the temperature of the heat sink 57a decreases with an increase of the driving current of the semiconductor laser device 51.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify McManus et al combined with Narusawa so that the heat-sinks are temperature controlled, as disclosed by Yoon. The advantage of temperature controlling the heat-sinks is that the wavelength stability of a semiconductor laser device can be improved which improves the yield ([0071] from Yoon).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McManus et al (“Application of quantum cascade lasers to high-precision atmospheric trace gas measurements”, November 2010, Optical Engineering 49 (11). NPL disclosed in the IDS dated 03/20/2023) in view of Narusawa (JP 2017103271 A which was disclosed in the IDS dated 03/20/2023. Portions of an attached translation are cited below) and further in view of Black (US 2018/0202926 A1).
Regarding Claim 29, McManus et al modified by Narusawa teaches the gas analyzer apparatus according to claim 1.
McManus et al modified by Narusawa further teaches that the gas analyser comprises 2 lasers (McManus et al, shown and described in Fig. 3).
McManus et al modified by Narusawa appears to be silent to the gas analyser comprises five or six or seven lasers.
Black, a gas analyzer using a laser detection system, does teach that the laser source assembly comprises five or six or seven lasers (Fig. 3 shows six laser modules with six lasers 68-78 [0089].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify McManus et al combined with Narusawa so that the gas analyser comprises five or six or seven lasers, as disclosed by Black. Multiple lasers allows for each respective laser beam to be used to excite one or more different materials in a sample gas (Abstract from Black).
Claims 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McManus et al (“Application of quantum cascade lasers to high-precision atmospheric trace gas measurements”, November 2010, Optical Engineering 49 (11). NPL disclosed in the IDS dated 03/20/2023) in view of Narusawa (JP 2017103271 A which was disclosed in the IDS dated 03/20/2023. Portions of an attached translation are cited below) and further in view of Breviere (US 2010/0162791 A1).
Regarding Claim 31, McManus et al modified by Narusawa teaches the gas analyzer apparatus according to claim 1.
McManus et al modified by Narusawa further teaches that the gas analyzer apparatus (McManus et al, shown in Fig. 3 and 4) comprises two sections, a first section (McManus et al, shown in annotated Fig. 4 below) being an optical part comprising at least the multipass cell (McManus et al, Annotated Fig. 4 below: sample is in a multipass cell), a photodetector (McManus et al, Annotated Fig. 4 below: detector detects light) and the laser housing (McManus et al, Fig. 3 and 4: housing where QC laser is in), and a second section (McManus et al, shown in annotated Fig. 4 below) being an electronics part comprising at least a data acquisition device (McManus et al, Annotated Fig. 4 below: computer), a data processing device (McManus et al, Annotated Fig. 4 below: signal processing), and a driving electronics (McManus et al, Annotated Fig. 4 below: system control).
PNG
media_image2.png
584
892
media_image2.png
Greyscale
McManus et al modified by Narusawa (for claim 1) appears to be silent to the gas analyzer apparatus comprises two sections within the outer housing, a first section being an optical part comprising deflection mirrors.
McManus et al, in another embodiment, does teach that the gas analyzer apparatus (shown in Fig. 6) comprises two sections within the outer housing (Fig. 6: outer housing that houses the optical table in the upper section and the electronics in the lower section), a first section being an optical part (Fig. 6: optical table in upper section) and a second section being an electronics part (Fig. 6: electronics in the lower section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify McManus et al modified by Narusawa (for claim 1) so that the gas analyzer apparatus comprises two sections within the outer housing, a first section being an optical part and a second section being an electronics part, as disclosed by McManus et al. The above-mentioned configuration is known in the field of endeavor. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine prior art elements (a gas analyzer apparatus with an optical part section and an electronics part section) according to known methods to yield predictable results (for protecting possible sensitive electronics from harsh sample gases in the optical part section) (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
McManus et al modified by Narusawa appears to be silent to the optical part comprising deflection mirrors.
Breviere, related to a gas analyzer, does teach that the optical part (transmission and introduction mechanism 131 and unit 123 shown in Fig. 5) comprises deflection mirrors (Fig. 5: deflection mirror 159 and secondary deflection mirror 203).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify McManus et al combined with Narusawa so that the optical part comprises deflection mirrors. Deflection mirrors are well-known components in gas analyzers. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine prior art elements (a gas analyzer with an optical part section that comprises deflection mirrors) according to known methods to yield predictable results (deflection mirrors for controlling the optical path of light) (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 32, McManus et al modified by Narusawa and Breviere teaches the gas analyzer apparatus according to claim 31.
McManus et al modified by Narusawa and Breviere further teaches that the two sections are divided by a dividing wall (McManus et al, shown in Fig. 6 where there is a dividing wall between the upper section (optical table) and the lower section (electronics).).
Other References Considered but not Cited
Zhou et al (“Monolithically, widely tunable quantum cascade lasers based on a heterogeneous active region design”, June 8th, 2016, Nature, pp.1-7), related to QCLs (quantum cascade lasers) teaches a monolithically integrated laser array (shown in Fig. 2).
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 JUDY DAO TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0085. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/JUDY DAO TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights