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 .
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 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.
Response to Amendment
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments 11 March 2026.
Claims 1, 5-7, 11, 16, and 18 were amended; no claims were cancelled; no new claims were added; therefore, claims 1-20 are pending in the current application and will be addressed below.
The 112(b) rejection to claim 6 is withdrawn due to amendment
The objection to claim 7 is withdrawn due to amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the specific combination of the references being used in the current rejection.
In response to applicant’s argument that references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the 1D scanning mirror is controllably movable about a tilt axis to selectively direct the optical beam to the first multifaceted mirror to generate a first scan pattern and to the second multifaceted mirror to generate a second scan pattern”) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). However, these claim limitations were not present in the previous claims and were presented by amendment on 11 March 2023. Therefore, the issue of whether Campbell and Ain-Kedem addresses these limitations are not relevant. These amended claims containing new limitations have been addressed by Campbell and Ain-Kedem as described below in the present Office Action.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell US 20180284237 A1 in view of Ain-Kedem US 20200064623 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Campbell teaches a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system ([0076-77]), comprising:
an optical processing system to transmit an optical beam and receive a return signal responsive to transmission of the optical beam (Light source and receivers in Figs. 3B, [0103-110]);
a 1D scanning mirror to reflect the optical beam from the optical processing system to multifaceted mirrors (scan mirrors 262 in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]);
a first multifaceted mirror (polygon mirror 270 and 80 in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]); and
Campbell does not explicitly teach the plurality of multifaceted mirrors, and a second multifaceted mirror of the plurality of multifaceted mirrors coupled to the first multifaceted mirror in a stacked configuration, wherein the 1D scanning mirror is controllably movable about a tilt axis to selectively direct the optical beam to the first multifaceted mirror to generate a first scan pattern and to the second multifaceted mirror to generate a second scan pattern.
Ain-Kedem teaches multiple multifaceted mirrors stacked on each other (702 and 704 in Figs. 10-17) and a 1D scanning mirror controllable to direct the beam to the multiple multifaceted mirrors to generate different scan patterns (Figs. 10-17, [0035, 44, 52-62]; additionally, directing the beams to the multiple multifaceted mirrors could be implemented using Campbell’s mirrors 262)
Additionally, Campbell teaches the scan mirrors 262 in Fig. 3B ([0103-110]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that when using Ain-Kedem’s stacked multifaceted mirrors, Campbell’s mirrors 262 scanning in the y-direction would select which multifaceted mirror is currently used without needing the additional translation of Ain-Kedem)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Campbell to include the plurality of multifaceted mirrors, and a second multifaceted mirror of the plurality of multifaceted mirrors coupled to the first multifaceted mirror in a stacked configuration, wherein the 1D scanning mirror is controllably movable about a tilt axis to selectively direct the optical beam to the first multifaceted mirror to generate a first scan pattern and to the second multifaceted mirror to generate a second scan pattern similar to Ain-Kedem with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the multiple field of view options and allow a smaller size of polygon(s) than compared to a single polygon depending on field of view and efficiency requirements (Ain-Kedem: [0034]).
Regarding claim 2, Campbell as modified above teaches the FMCW LIDAR system of claim 1,
Campbell does not explicitly teach but Ain-Kedem teaches wherein the first multifaceted mirror and the second multifaceted mirror rotate together with a same rotational velocity (polygons rotate in unison, [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Campbell such that the first multifaceted mirror and the second multifaceted mirror rotate together with a same rotational velocity similar to Ain-Kedem with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of minimizing the number of separate motors or gearing needed to rotate multiple polygons.
Regarding claim 3, Campbell as modified above teaches the FMCW LIDAR system of claim 1,
Campbell does not explicitly teach but Ain-Kedem teaches wherein: the first multifaceted mirror includes a first number of facets and generates the first scan pattern at a first frame rate; and the second multifaceted mirror includes a second number of facets larger than the first number of facets and generates the second scan pattern at a second frame rate higher than the first frame rate (polygons have different numbers of facets, [0044], rotate in unison, [0038], one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a polygon with a larger number of facets will have a higher refresh rate (and smaller field of view) than a polygon with a lower number of facets rotating in unison).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Campbell such that the first multifaceted mirror includes a first number of facets and generates the first scan pattern at a first frame rate; and the second multifaceted mirror includes a second number of facets larger than the first number of facets and generates the second scan pattern at a second frame rate higher than the first frame rate similar to Ain-Kedem with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the system to choose between size of field of view and refresh rate based on which polygon the light is aimed at.
Regarding claim 4, Campbell as modified above teaches the FMCW LIDAR system of claim 1,
Campbell does not explicitly teach wherein the first scan pattern is over a first azimuthal field of view, and the second scan pattern is over a second azimuthal field of view smaller than the first azimuthal field of view (polygons have different numbers of facets, [0044], rotate in unison, [0038], one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a polygon with a larger number of facets will have a higher refresh rate (and smaller field of view) than a polygon with a lower number of facets rotating in unison).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Campbell such that the first scan pattern is over a first azimuthal field of view, and the second scan pattern is over a second azimuthal field of view smaller than the first azimuthal field of view similar to Ain-Kedem with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the system to choose between size of field of view and refresh rate based on which polygon the light is aimed at.
Regarding claim 5, Campbell as modified above teaches the FMCW LIDAR system of claim 1, comprising a second optical processing system to transmit a second optical beam and receive a second return signal responsive to transmission of the second optical beam (second beam transmitted through waveguides 252 and received by receivers shown in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]); and a second 1D scanning mirror to reflect the second optical beam from the second optical processing system to the plurality of multifaceted mirrors (second scanning mirror 262 in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]);
Campbell does not explicitly teach wherein the second 1D scanning mirror is controllable to direct the second optical beam to the first multifaceted mirror to generate a third scan pattern or to the second multifaceted mirror to generate a fourth scan pattern.
Ain-Kedem teaches a 1D scanning mirror controllable to direct the beam to the multiple multifaceted mirrors to generate different scan patterns (Figs. 10-17, [0035, 44, 52-62]; additionally, directing the beams to the multiple multifaceted mirrors could be implemented using Campbell’s mirrors 262)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Campbell such that the second 1D scanning mirror is controllable to direct the optical beam to the first multifaceted mirror to generate a third scan pattern or to the second multifaceted mirror to generate a fourth scan pattern similar to Ain-Kedem with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing both “eyes” to use all parts of the multi-polygon.
Regarding claim 6, Campbell as modified above teaches the FMCW LIDAR system of claim 5, wherein the first 1D scanning mirror and the second 1D scanning mirror are controllable to generate a combined scan pattern that includes the first scan pattern interleaved with the fourth scan pattern (scan patterns show overlapping (interleaved) at 294 in Fig. 3B, [0108]).
Regarding claim 7, Campbell as modified above teaches the FMCW LIDAR system of claim 1,
Campbell does not explicitly teach but Ain-Kedem teaches comprising a third multifaceted mirror coupled to the first multifaceted mirror and the second multifaceted mirror in a stacked configuration (two or more polygons respectively stacked, [0038, 44]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Campbell to include third multifaceted mirror coupled to the first multifaceted mirror and the second multifaceted mirror in a stacked configuration similar to Ain-Kedem with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of further increasing the field of view and refresh rate options while keeping a smaller form factor than if the polygons were separate.
Regarding claim 10, Campbell as modified above teaches the FMCW LIDAR system of claim 1, wherein the optical beam is a frequency-modulated continuous wave (FMCW) optical beam ([0076-77]).
Regarding claim 11, Campbell teaches a method of operating a continuous wave light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system, comprising:
transmitting, by an optical processing system, an optical beam and receiving a return signal responsive to transmitting the optical beam (Light source and receivers in Figs. 3B, [0103-110]);
steering the optical beam to reflect from a first multifaceted mirror to create a first set of data points having a first scan pattern (scan mirrors 262 in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]);
and combining the first set of data points and the second set of data points into a point cloud (stitching together data to form a point cloud, [0145]).
Campbell does not explicitly teach steering the optical beam to reflect from a second multifaceted mirror to create a second set of data points having a second scan pattern, and the steering is done by moving a 1D scanning mirror about a tilt axis;
Ain-Kedem teaches multiple multifaceted mirrors stacked on each other (702 and 704 in Figs. 10-17) and a 1D scanning mirror controllable to direct the beam to the multiple multifaceted mirrors to generate different scan patterns (Figs. 10-17, [0035, 44, 52-62]; additionally, directing the beams to the multiple multifaceted mirrors could be implemented using Campbell’s mirrors 262)
Additionally, Campbell teaches the scan mirrors 262 in Fig. 3B ([0103-110]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that when using Ain-Kedem’s stacked multifaceted mirrors, Campbell’s mirrors 262 scanning in the y-direction would select which multifaceted mirror is currently used without needing the additional translation of Ain-Kedem)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Campbell to include steering the optical beam to reflect from a second multifaceted mirror to create a second set of data points having a second scan pattern, and the steering is done by moving a 1D scanning mirror about a tilt axis similar to Ain-Kedem with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the multiple field of view options and allow a smaller size of polygon(s) than compared to a single polygon depending on field of view and efficiency requirements (Ain-Kedem: [0034]).
Regarding claim 12, Campbell as modified above teaches the method of claim 11,
Campbell does not explicitly teach but Ain-Kedem teaches wherein the first scan pattern covers a first portion of a field of view (FOV) of the FMCW LIDAR system at a first frame rate; and the second scan pattern covers a second portion of a FOV of the FMCW LIDAR system at a second frame rate (polygons have different numbers of facets, [0044], rotate in unison, [0038], one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a polygon with a larger number of facets will have a higher refresh rate (and smaller field of view) than a polygon with a lower number of facets rotating in unison).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Campbell such that the first scan pattern covers a first portion of a field of view (FOV) of the FMCW LIDAR system at a first frame rate; and the second scan pattern covers a second portion of a FOV of the FMCW LIDAR system at a second frame rate similar to Ain-Kedem with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the system to choose between size of field of view and refresh rate based on which polygon the light is aimed at.
Regarding claim 13, Campbell as modified above teaches the method of claim 11,
Campbell does not explicitly teach but Ain-Kedem teaches rotating the first multifaceted mirror and the second multifaceted mirror together with a same rotational velocity (rotate in unison, [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Campbell to include rotating the first multifaceted mirror and the second multifaceted mirror together with a same rotational velocity similar to Ain-Kedem with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of minimizing the number of separate motors or gearing needed to rotate multiple polygons.
Regarding claim 14, Campbell as modified above teaches the method of claim 11, comprising transmitting, by a second optical processing system, a second optical beam and receiving a second return signal responsive to transmitting the second optical beam (second beam transmitted through waveguides 252 and received by receivers shown in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]); and
steering the second optical beam to reflect from the first multifaceted mirror to create a third set of data points having a third scan pattern (second scanning mirror 262 in Fig. 3B, [0103-110]); and
Campbell does not explicitly teach steering the second optical beam to reflect from the second multifaceted mirror to create a fourth set of data points having a fourth scan pattern.
Ain-Kedem teaches a 1D scanning mirror controllable to direct the beam to the multiple multifaceted mirrors to generate different scan patterns (Figs. 10-17, [0035, 44, 52-62]; additionally, directing the beams to the multiple multifaceted mirrors could be implemented using Campbell’s mirrors 262)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Campbell to include steering the second optical beam to reflect from the second multifaceted mirror to create a fourth set of data points having a fourth scan pattern similar to Ain-Kedem with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing both “eyes” to use all parts of the multi-polygon.
Regarding claim 15, Campbell as modified above teaches the method of claim 14,
Campbell does not explicitly teach but Ain-Kedem teaches steering the optical beam to reflect from a third multifaceted mirror to create a third set of data points having a third scan pattern (two or more polygons respectively stacked, Figs. 10-17, [0035, 38, 44, 52-62];).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Campbell to include steering the optical beam to reflect from a third multifaceted mirror to create a third set of data points having a third scan pattern similar to Ain-Kedem with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of further increasing the field of view and refresh rate options while keeping a smaller form factor than if the polygons were separate.
Regarding claim 16, Campbell teaches a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system, comprising:
a first optical processing system to transmit a first optical beam and receive a first return signal responsive to transmission of the first optical beam (Light source 250 and waveguides 252 and receivers in side A of Figs. 3B, [0103-110]);
a first 1D scanning mirror to reflect the optical beam from the first optical processing system to a first multifaceted mirror (scan mirror 262 in side A of Fig. 3B, [0103-110]);
a second optical processing system to transmit a second optical beam and receive a second return signal responsive to transmission of the second optical beam (Light source 250 and waveguides 252 and receivers in side B of Figs. 3B, [0103-110]); and
a second 1D scanning mirror controllably movable about a tilt axis to reflect the second optical beam from the second optical processing system to the first multifaceted mirror (scan mirror 262 in side B of Fig. 3B, [0103-110]), wherein
the first multifaceted mirror is rotatable to reflect the first optical beam and the second optical beam into a field of view (FOV) of the LIDAR system (polygon mirror 270 in Figs. 3B, 5-6, [0103-110]).
Campbell does not explicitly teach the second 1D scanning mirror controllably movable about a tilt axis to selectively reflect the second optical beam from the second optical processing system to the first multifaceted mirror and to a second multifaceted mirror.
Ain-Kedem teaches multiple multifaceted mirrors stacked on each other (702 and 704 in Figs. 10-17) and a 1D scanning mirror controllable to direct the beam to the multiple multifaceted mirrors to generate different scan patterns (Figs. 10-17, [0035, 44, 52-62]; additionally, directing the beams to the multiple multifaceted mirrors could be implemented using Campbell’s mirrors 262)
Additionally, Campbell teaches the scan mirrors 262 in Fig. 3B ([0103-110]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that when using Ain-Kedem’s stacked multifaceted mirrors, Campbell’s mirrors 262 scanning in the y-direction would select which multifaceted mirror is currently used without needing the additional translation of Ain-Kedem)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Campbell to include the second 1D scanning mirror controllably movable about a tilt axis to selectively reflect the second optical beam from the second optical processing system to the first multifaceted mirror and to a second multifaceted mirror similar to Ain-Kedem with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the multiple field of view options and allow a smaller size of polygon(s) than compared to a single polygon depending on field of view and efficiency requirements (Ain-Kedem: [0034]).
Regarding claim 17, Campbell teaches the FMCW LIDAR system of claim 16, wherein the first optical beam scans along an elevation axis according to a first scan pattern and the second optical beam scans along the elevation axis according to a second scan pattern (each has its own scan pattern, Figs. 3B, [0067, 110]).
Regarding claim 18, Campbell as modified above teaches the FMCW LIDAR system of claim 16, wherein the (Figs. 3B),
Campbell does not explicitly teach but Ain-Kedem teaches the second multifaceted mirror is to reflect the second optical beam into the FOV of the FMCW LIDAR system.
Ain-Kedem teaches multiple multifaceted mirrors stacked on each other (702 and 704 in Figs. 10-17) and a 1D scanning mirror controllable to direct the beam to the multiple multifaceted mirrors to generate different scan patterns (Figs. 10-17, [0035, 44, 52-62]; additionally, directing the beams to the multiple multifaceted mirrors could be implemented using Campbell’s mirrors 262)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Campbell such that the second multifaceted mirror is to reflect the second optical beam into the FOV of the FMCW LIDAR system similar to Ain-Kedem with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the multiple field of view options and allow a smaller size of polygon(s) than compared to a single polygon depending on field of view and efficiency requirements (Ain-Kedem: [0034]).
Regarding claim 19, Campbell as modified above teaches the FMCW LIDAR system of claim 18,
Campbell does not explicitly teach but Ain-Kedem teaches wherein the first multifaceted mirror and the second multifaceted mirror rotate together with a same rotational velocity (polygons rotate in unison, [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Campbell such that the first multifaceted mirror and the second multifaceted mirror rotate together with a same rotational velocity similar to Ain-Kedem with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of minimizing the number of separate motors or gearing needed to rotate multiple polygons.
Regarding claim 20, Campbell as modified above teaches the FMCW LIDAR system of claim 18,
Campbell does not explicitly teach but Ain-Kedem teaches wherein: the first multifaceted mirror includes a first number of facets and generates a first scan pattern at a first frame rate; and the second multifaceted mirror includes a second number of facets larger than the first number of facets and generates a second scan pattern at a second frame rate higher than the first frame rate (polygons have different numbers of facets, [0044], rotate in unison, [0038], one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a polygon with a larger number of facets will have a higher refresh rate (and smaller field of view) than a polygon with a lower number of facets rotating in unison).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Campbell such that the first multifaceted mirror includes a first number of facets and generates a first scan pattern at a first frame rate; and the second multifaceted mirror includes a second number of facets larger than the first number of facets and generates a second scan pattern at a second frame rate higher than the first frame rate similar to Ain-Kedem with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the system to choose between size of field of view and refresh rate based on which polygon the light is aimed at.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell US 20180284237 A1 in view of Ain-Kedem US 20200064623 A1 and further in view of Hughes US 20190154816 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Campbell as modified above teaches the FMCW LIDAR system of claim 1,
Campbell does not explicitly teach but Hughes teaches wherein corners of the first multifaceted mirror are chamfered to prevent an edge of the first multifaceted mirror from blocking the optical beam when directed to the second multifaceted mirror (Figs. 12-20, [0075-76]; examiner notes that preventing the edge from blocking the optical beam is intended use, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that chamfered edges such as Hughes uses would help prevent blocking light when used on multi-polygons such as Ain-Kedem’s).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Campbell such that corners of the first multifaceted mirror are chamfered to prevent an edge of the first multifaceted mirror from blocking the optical beam when directed to the second multifaceted mirror similar to Hughes with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of decreasing acoustic noise (Hughes: [0069]) and decrease the possibility of extra reflections off the unintended polygon.
Regarding claim 9, Campbell as modified above teaches the FMCW LIDAR system of claim 1, comprising a housing (housing 140, Figs. 2-6, [0112]) to contain the optical processing system, the 1D scanning mirror, the first multifaceted mirror, and the second multifaceted mirror, wherein the housing comprises a transparent window (windows 142, Figs. 2-6, [0112]), and
Campbell does not explicitly teach wherein corners of the first multifaceted mirror are chamfered to be parallel to a surface of the transparent window.
Hughes teaches chamfering corners of a polygon prism to be parallel to a mirror (Figs. 12-20, [0075-76]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if there is no mirror after the polygon mirror that chamfering to be parallel to the next optical element would be chamfering to be parallel to the window. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that doing so parallel to Campbell’s windows in Fig. 6A would allow a larger polygon while decreasing acoustic noise and collisions with the window; examiner also notes that each face of the polygon will be parallel with the window at some point during the rotation of the polygon and each face could be considered a chamfered corner of the polygon connecting the faces on either side)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Campbell such that the second 1D scanning mirror is controllable to direct the optical beam to the first multifaceted mirror to generate a third scan pattern or to the second multifaceted mirror to generate a fourth scan pattern similar to Hughes with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of decreasing acoustic noise (Hughes: [0069]).
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 JOSEPH C FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5533. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 571-272-6970. 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.
/J.C.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights