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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/18/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the amended abstract and withdraws the rejection. Claims 1-16 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant suggests that Viswanathan does not specifically disclose, teach, or suggest that the laser light sources of Viswanathan emit laser lights having different outputs based on an odd numbered frame or an even numbered frame. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although Viswanathan does not used the even/odd nomenclature, it does disclose that two lasers may both operate at the same time with pulses collimated along the same output beam ([0064]). Furthermore, Viswanathan discloses at least in [0064] that during the operation of the lasers, their pulses may be interleaved as in Figure 7. In the case of two lasers then, each laser emits laser light at two different outputs before repeating. These repeating units are equivalent to the frames of this application, and consist of a first part and a second part, which are equivalent to the limitation of odd frames and even frames.
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 1-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viswanathan (US 2019/0212447 A1) in view of Fu (US 2022/0011433 A1) and further in view of Pacala (US 2018/0329065 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Viswanathan discloses a lidar sensor ([0029]: “FIG. 2 shows a scanning 3D imaging system with time division multiplexing of multiple wavelengths in accordance with various embodiments of the present invention.”), comprising:
a first transmitter configured to output laser light (Figure 2, element 266 is a first laser source emitting at wavelength lambda 1; [0030], there can be any number of laser sources, including N=2) having a first output in an odd numbered frame ([0030] discloses that both lasers can be configured to emit pulses simultaneously. Thus, the first laser emits a first output in odd numbered frames), and to output laser light having a second output in an even numbered frame ([0030] discloses that both lasers can be configured to emit pulses simultaneously. Thus, the first laser emits a second output in even numbered frames; [0064] discloses that the laser pulses may be interleaved in time. In the N=2 lasers case, this means that in the first half of the period the laser outputs one output, and in the second half of the period the laser outputs another output.);
a second transmitter configured to output laser light (Figure 2, element 266 is a first laser source emitting at wavelength lambda 1; [0030], there can be any number of laser sources, including N=2) having the second output in an odd numbered frame ([0030] discloses that both lasers can be configured to emit pulses simultaneously. Thus, the second laser emits a second output in odd numbered frames), and to output laser light having the first output in an even numbered frame ([0030] discloses that both lasers can be configured to emit pulses simultaneously. Thus, the second laser emits the first output in even numbered frames. [0064] discloses that the laser pulses may be interleaved in time. In the N=2 lasers case, this means that in the first half of the period the laser outputs one output, and in the second half of the period the laser outputs another output.); and
a receiver configured to receive reflected light of the laser light output from the first transmitter and the second transmitter to detect a target ([0029]: “System 200 also includes time-of-flight (TOF) measurement circuits 280 and 282,”; Fig. 3; [0044]).
Viswanathan does not teach and Fu does teach that the second output is a lower output than the first output ([0036]: “The transmit signals 302-11 and 302-21 are collectively the transmit signal 302. A first power level of the transmit signal 302-11 is greater than a second power level of the transmit signal 302-21. The first power level is greater than the second power level, which is depicted in FIG. 3-1 by the pulse amplitude of the transmit signal 302-11 being larger than the pulse amplitude of the transmit signal 302-21.” Figure 5 and paragraph [0050] teaches alternating power levels in a high-low-low-high pattern across subsequent parity frames).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Viswanathan with the above teaching of Fu. Fu notes in [0036] that “the alternating pattern of power levels is effective to configure the lidar system 102 to alternative between a long-range detection capability and a short-range detection capability.” This pattern therefore allows for a larger effective detection range, which is a desirable characteristic for the end user.
Viswanathan does not teach and Fu does not teach and Pacala does teach wherein each transmitter (Figure 11 discloses a light emitter array 1102; [0128]) has a laser output module and a lens ([0129] discloses that each emitter is associated with a micro-optic lens; [0130]: “Each micro-optic transmitter channel 1108 can correspond with a respective light emitter 1104 so that light outputted from the light emitter 1104 first passes through the first convex lens, through the corresponding region of substrate 1119, and then through the second convex lens during operation.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Pacala that each transmitter has a laser output module and a lens into the device of Viswanathan in view of Fu. Pairing each emitter with a dedicated lens can provide better beam collimation in LiDAR systems since no emitter will be near the edge of a larger collimation lens where spherical aberration could result in pointing errors. Better beam collimation can yield higher resolution and better retrievals of objects in the target scene.
Regarding Claim 2, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Viswanathan further discloses wherein in the odd numbered frame, the laser light having the first output of the first transmitter precedes the laser light having the second output of the second transmitter ([0041]: “For example, IR pulse timing circuit 240 may control the timing of IR pulses such that laser light pulses of different wavelengths are multiplexed in time. For example, IR pulse timing circuit 240 may provide pulse timing to cause laser light pulses of different wavelengths from light sources 264 to be interleaved in time in beam 212.”; Figure 7 shows that the first pulse train 710 precedes the second train 720 in the first, and all odd, frames.).
Regarding Claim 3, which depends from rejected Claim 2, Viswanathan further discloses wherein the first output laser light of the first transmitter and the second output laser light of the second transmitter are output with a certain time difference ([0041]: “For example, IR pulse timing circuit 240 may control the timing of IR pulses such that laser light pulses of different wavelengths are multiplexed in time. For example, IR pulse timing circuit 240 may provide pulse timing to cause laser light pulses of different wavelengths from light sources 264 to be interleaved in time in beam 212.”; Figure 7 shows that the first pulse train 710 precedes the second train 720, and there is therefore necessarily a time difference).
Regarding Claim 4, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Viswanathan does not teach and Fu does teach wherein in the even numbered frame, the laser light having the second output of the first transmitter lags behind the laser light having the first output of the second transmitter ([0036]: “The transmit signals 302-11 and 302-21 are collectively the transmit signal 302. A first power level of the transmit signal 302-11 is greater than a second power level of the transmit signal 302-21. The first power level is greater than the second power level, which is depicted in FIG. 3-1 by the pulse amplitude of the transmit signal 302-11 being larger than the pulse amplitude of the transmit signal 302-21.” Figure 5 and paragraph [0050] teaches alternating power levels in a high-low-low-high pattern across subsequent parity frames).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Viswanathan with the above teaching of Fu. Fu notes in [0036] that “the alternating pattern of power levels is effective to configure the lidar system 102 to alternative between a long-range detection capability and a short-range detection capability.” This pattern therefore allows for a larger effective detection range, which is a desirable characteristic for the end user.
Regarding Claim 5, which depends from rejected Claim 4, Viswanathan further discloses wherein the first output laser light of the first transmitter and the second output laser light of the second transmitter are output with a certain time difference ([0041]: “For example, IR pulse timing circuit 240 may control the timing of IR pulses such that laser light pulses of different wavelengths are multiplexed in time. For example, IR pulse timing circuit 240 may provide pulse timing to cause laser light pulses of different wavelengths from light sources 264 to be interleaved in time in beam 212.”; Figure 7 shows that the first pulse train 710 precedes the second train 720, and there is therefore necessarily a time difference).
Regarding Claim 7, Viswanath discloses a target detection method using a lidar sensor ([0029]: “FIG. 2 shows a scanning 3D imaging system with time division multiplexing of multiple wavelengths in accordance with various embodiments of the present invention.”) comprising a first transmitter, a second transmitter, and a receiver, the target detection method comprising:
a) by the first transmitter, outputting laser light (Figure 2, element 266 is a first laser source emitting at wavelength lambda 1; [0030], there can be any number of laser sources, including N=2) having a first output in an odd numbered frame ([0030] discloses that both lasers can be configured to emit pulses simultaneously. Thus, the first laser emits a first output in odd numbered frames), and outputting laser light having a second output in an even numbered frame ([0030] discloses that both lasers can be configured to emit pulses simultaneously. Thus, the first laser emits a second output in even numbered frames. [0064] discloses that the laser pulses may be interleaved in time. In the N=2 lasers case, this means that in the first half of the period the laser outputs one output, and in the second half of the period the laser outputs another output.);
b) by the second transmitter (Figure 2, element 266 is a first laser source emitting at wavelength lambda 1; [0030], there can be any number of laser sources, including N=2), outputting laser light having the second output in an odd numbered frame ([0030] discloses that both lasers can be configured to emit pulses simultaneously. Thus, the second laser emits a second output in odd numbered frames), and outputting laser light having the first output in an even numbered frame ([0030] discloses that both lasers can be configured to emit pulses simultaneously. Thus, the second laser emits the first output in even numbered frames. [0064] discloses that the laser pulses may be interleaved in time. In the N=2 lasers case, this means that in the first half of the period the laser outputs one output, and in the second half of the period the laser outputs another output.);
and c) by the receiver, receiving reflected light of the laser light output from the first transmitter and the second transmitter to detect a target ([0029]: “System 200 also includes time-of-flight (TOF) measurement circuits 280 and 282,”; Fig. 3; [0044]).
Viswanathan does not teach and Fu does teach wherein the first transmitter emits a second output which is a lower output than the first output ([0036]: “The transmit signals 302-11 and 302-21 are collectively the transmit signal 302. A first power level of the transmit signal 302-11 is greater than a second power level of the transmit signal 302-21. The first power level is greater than the second power level, which is depicted in FIG. 3-1 by the pulse amplitude of the transmit signal 302-11 being larger than the pulse amplitude of the transmit signal 302-21.” Figure 5 and paragraph [0050] teaches alternating power levels in a high-low-low-high pattern across subsequent parity frames).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Viswanathan with the above teaching of Fu. Fu notes in [0036] that “the alternating pattern of power levels is effective to configure the lidar system 102 to alternative between a long-range detection capability and a short-range detection capability.” This pattern therefore allows for a larger effective detection range, which is a desirable characteristic for the end user.
Viswanathan does not teach and Fu does not teach and Pacala does teach wherein each transmitter (Figure 11 discloses a light emitter array 1102; [0128]) has a laser output module and a lens ([0129] discloses that each emitter is associated with a micro-optic lens; [0130]: “Each micro-optic transmitter channel 1108 can correspond with a respective light emitter 1104 so that light outputted from the light emitter 1104 first passes through the first convex lens, through the corresponding region of substrate 1119, and then through the second convex lens during operation.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Pacala that each transmitter has a laser output module and a lens into the device of Viswanathan in view of Fu. Pairing each emitter with a dedicated lens can provide better beam collimation in LiDAR systems since no emitter will be near the edge of a larger collimation lens where spherical aberration could result in pointing errors. Better beam collimation can yield higher resolution and better retrievals of objects in the target scene.
Regarding Claim 8, which depends from rejected Claim 7, Viswanathan further discloses wherein in the odd numbered frame, the laser light having the first output of the first transmitter precedes the laser light having the second output of the second transmitter ([0041]: “For example, IR pulse timing circuit 240 may control the timing of IR pulses such that laser light pulses of different wavelengths are multiplexed in time. For example, IR pulse timing circuit 240 may provide pulse timing to cause laser light pulses of different wavelengths from light sources 264 to be interleaved in time in beam 212.”; Figure 7 shows that the first pulse train 710 precedes the second train 720 in the first, and all odd, frames.).
Regarding Claim 9, which depends from rejected Claim 8, Viswanathan further discloses wherein the first output laser light of the first transmitter and the second output laser light of the second transmitter are output with a certain time difference ([0041]: “For example, IR pulse timing circuit 240 may control the timing of IR pulses such that laser light pulses of different wavelengths are multiplexed in time. For example, IR pulse timing circuit 240 may provide pulse timing to cause laser light pulses of different wavelengths from light sources 264 to be interleaved in time in beam 212.”; Figure 7 shows that the first pulse train 710 precedes the second train 720, and there is therefore necessarily a time difference).
Regarding Claim 10, which depends from rejected Claim 7, Viswanathan does not teach and Fu does teach wherein in the even numbered frame, the laser light having the second output of the first transmitter lags behind the laser light having the first output of the second transmitter ([0036]: “The transmit signals 302-11 and 302-21 are collectively the transmit signal 302. A first power level of the transmit signal 302-11 is greater than a second power level of the transmit signal 302-21. The first power level is greater than the second power level, which is depicted in FIG. 3-1 by the pulse amplitude of the transmit signal 302-11 being larger than the pulse amplitude of the transmit signal 302-21.” Figure 5 and paragraph [0050] teaches alternating power levels in a high-low-low-high pattern across subsequent parity frames).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Viswanathan with the above teaching of Fu. Fu notes in [0036] that “the alternating pattern of power levels is effective to configure the lidar system 102 to alternative between a long-range detection capability and a short-range detection capability.” This pattern therefore allows for a larger effective detection range, which is a desirable characteristic for the end user.
Regarding Claim 11, which depends from rejected Claim 10, Viswanathan further teaches wherein the first output laser light of the first transmitter and the second output laser light of the second transmitter are output with a certain time difference ([0041]: “For example, IR pulse timing circuit 240 may control the timing of IR pulses such that laser light pulses of different wavelengths are multiplexed in time. For example, IR pulse timing circuit 240 may provide pulse timing to cause laser light pulses of different wavelengths from light sources 264 to be interleaved in time in beam 212.”; Figure 7 shows that the first pulse train 710 precedes the second train 720, and there is therefore necessarily a time difference).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viswanathan in view of Fu as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Hu (CN 110749898 A).
Regarding Claim 6, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Viswanathan does teach wherein the reflected light of the laser light of the first transmitter and the reflected light of the laser light of the second transmitter received by the receiver (see the rejection of Claim 1 above).
Viswanathan in view of Fu does not teach and Hu does teach wherein the reflected lights are received at a certain interval and thus are distinguished from laser lights transmitted from other lidar sensors ([0007]; [0012]: “and a control and processing circuit for controlling the transmitting module to transmit laser pulse signals with alternating time intervals toward the target area, and controlling the receiving module to receive the echo signals reflected from the target area; determining the number of echo signals received within the alternating time intervals and the corresponding flight time, and calculating the distance information of the target area based on the determination result.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Viswanathan in view of Fu with the teaching of Hu to use certain time intervals to distinguish signals from other LiDAR devices. In [0066] Hu notes that “even if there are multiple interference signals in the environment, the probability that the interference signals can meet the above conditions and be confused with the valid echo signals is very low.” This method then results in higher quality retrieval of distance by suppressing interference from other sources.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viswanathan in view of Fu as applied to claim 7 above, and in view of Hu.
Regarding Claim 12, which depends from rejected Claim 7, Viswanathan does teach wherein the reflected light of the laser light of the first transmitter and the reflected light of the laser light of the second transmitter received by the receiver (see the rejection of Claim 7 above.)
Viswanathan in view of Fu does not teach and Hu does teach wherein the reflected lights are received at a certain interval and thus are distinguished from laser lights transmitted from other lidar sensors ([0007]: “when multiple lidar systems are used to detect distance, because the laser pulse frequency emitted by the lidar is fixed, the lidar system will receive pulses emitted by other lidar systems at the same time as it receives its own pulse.”; [0012]: “and a control and processing circuit for controlling the transmitting module to transmit laser pulse signals with alternating time intervals toward the target area, and controlling the receiving module to receive the echo signals reflected from the target area; determining the number of echo signals received within the alternating time intervals and the corresponding flight time, and calculating the distance information of the target area based on the determination result.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Viswanathan in view of Fu with the teaching of Hu to use certain time intervals to distinguish signals from other LiDAR devices. In [0066] Hu notes that “even if there are multiple interference signals in the environment, the probability that the interference signals can meet the above conditions and be confused with the valid echo signals is very low.” This method then results in higher quality retrieval of distance by suppressing interference from other sources.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viswanathan in view Fu and in view of Hu and further in view of .
Regarding Claim 13, Viswanathan discloses a lidar sensor ([0029]: “FIG. 2 shows a scanning 3D imaging system with time division multiplexing of multiple wavelengths in accordance with various embodiments of the present invention.”) comprising a plurality of transmitters ([0030]: “Light sources 264 include multiple light sources capable of emitting laser light of different wavelengths. Light sources 264 shows two light sources, however, any number of light sources at different wavelengths may be included.”) and one receiver, wherein at least one first transmitter of the plurality of transmitters periodically alternately outputs a laser light having a first output and a laser light having a second output, and another second transmitter of the plurality of transmitters periodically alternately outputs a laser light having a second output and a laser light having a first output ([0064], [0041]: “For example, IR pulse timing circuit 240 may provide pulse timing to cause laser light pulses of different wavelengths from light sources 264 to be interleaved in time in beam 212.” C.f., Figure 7, “interleaved” here is reasonably taken to satisfy the limitation of alternating output.)
Wherein in each period of the periodically alternate outputting, the first transmitter and the second transmitter output laser light having different output levels in a same period ([0064], [0041]: “For example, IR pulse timing circuit 240 may provide pulse timing to cause laser light pulses of different wavelengths from light sources 264 to be interleaved in time in beam 212.” In the case of N=2 transmitters, the repetition period includes a first portion in which the first transmitter emits at a first wavelength (output) and a second portion in which the second transmitter emits at a second wavelength).
Viswanathan does not teach and Fu does teach wherein the second output is lower than the first output ([0036]: “The transmit signals 302-11 and 302-21 are collectively the transmit signal 302. A first power level of the transmit signal 302-11 is greater than a second power level of the transmit signal 302-21. The first power level is greater than the second power level, which is depicted in FIG. 3-1 by the pulse amplitude of the transmit signal 302-11 being larger than the pulse amplitude of the transmit signal 302-21.” Figure 5 and paragraph [0050] teaches alternating power levels in a high-low-low-high pattern across subsequent parity frames).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Viswanathan with the above teaching of Fu. Fu notes in [0036] that “the alternating pattern of power levels is effective to configure the lidar system 102 to alternative between a long-range detection capability and a short-range detection capability.” This pattern therefore allows for a larger effective detection range, which is a desirable characteristic for the end user.
Viswanathan suggests but does not explicitly teach and Hu does teach that a result of receiving the laser lights of the transmitters received by the receiver is distinguished from laser lights transmitted from other lidar sensors ([0007]: “when multiple lidar systems are used to detect distance, because the laser pulse frequency emitted by the lidar is fixed, the lidar system will receive pulses emitted by other lidar systems at the same time as it receives its own pulse.”; [0012]: “and a control and processing circuit for controlling the transmitting module to transmit laser pulse signals with alternating time intervals toward the target area, and controlling the receiving module to receive the echo signals reflected from the target area; determining the number of echo signals received within the alternating time intervals and the corresponding flight time, and calculating the distance information of the target area based on the determination result.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Viswanathan in view of Fu with the teaching of Hu to use certain time intervals to distinguish signals from other LiDAR devices. In [0066] Hu notes that “even if there are multiple interference signals in the environment, the probability that the interference signals can meet the above conditions and be confused with the valid echo signals is very low.” This method then results in higher quality retrieval of distance by suppressing interference from other sources.
Viswanathan does not teach and Fu does not teach and Hu does not teach and Pacala does teach wherein each of the plurality of transmitters (Figure 11 discloses a light emitter array 1102; [0128]) has a laser output module and a lens ([0129] discloses that each emitter is associated with a micro-optic lens; [0130]: “Each micro-optic transmitter channel 1108 can correspond with a respective light emitter 1104 so that light outputted from the light emitter 1104 first passes through the first convex lens, through the corresponding region of substrate 1119, and then through the second convex lens during operation.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Pacala that each transmitter has a laser output module and a lens into the device of Viswanathan in view of Fu. Pairing each emitter with a dedicated lens can provide better beam collimation in LiDAR systems since no emitter will be near the edge of a larger collimation lens where spherical aberration could result in pointing errors. Better beam collimation can yield higher resolution and better retrievals of objects in the target scene.
Regarding Claim 14, which depends from rejected Claim 13, Viswanathan further discloses wherein a timing of transmitting the laser light of the first transmitter and the second transmitter is different from each other ([0041]: “For example, IR pulse timing circuit 240 may control the timing of IR pulses such that laser light pulses of different wavelengths are multiplexed in time. For example, IR pulse timing circuit 240 may provide pulse timing to cause laser light pulses of different wavelengths from light sources 264 to be interleaved in time in beam 212.”; Figure 7 shows that the first pulse train 710 precedes the second train 720 in the first, and all odd, frames.).
Regarding Claim 15, which depends from rejected Claim 14, Viswanathan further discloses wherein the laser light of the first transmitter and the laser light of the second transmitter are output with a certain time difference ([0041]: “For example, IR pulse timing circuit 240 may control the timing of IR pulses such that laser light pulses of different wavelengths are multiplexed in time. For example, IR pulse timing circuit 240 may provide pulse timing to cause laser light pulses of different wavelengths from light sources 264 to be interleaved in time in beam 212.”; Figure 7 shows that the first pulse train 710 precedes the second train 720, and there is therefore necessarily a time difference).
Regarding Claim 16, which depends from rejected Claim 15, Viswanathan further discloses wherein the first transmitter and the second transmitter control an output timing ([0041]: “IR pulse timing circuit 240 controls the generation of IR pulses and causes them to be generated at times that spatially place the pulses in a desired pattern within the field of view.”) so that the laser light of the first output precedes and the laser light of the second output lags behind ([0041]: “For example, IR pulse timing circuit 240 may control the timing of IR pulses such that laser light pulses of different wavelengths are multiplexed in time. For example, IR pulse timing circuit 240 may provide pulse timing to cause laser light pulses of different wavelengths from light sources 264 to be interleaved in time in beam 212.”; Figure 7 shows that the first pulse train 710 precedes the second train 720, and there is therefore necessarily a time difference which causes the second output to lag behind.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mheen (US 2015/0009485 A1) discloses a laser radar system featuring odd and even pulses of differing intensities.
Hall (US 2017/0269197 A1) discloses a LiDAR system with varying illumination intensity.
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 BENJAMIN WADE CLOUSER whose telephone number is (571)272-0378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5:00.
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 at (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.
/B.W.C./ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights