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 Amendments
The amendment filed 10/08/2025 is entered.
Claimed 1, 2, 7, 9, 12, 14-16, and 19 are amended.
Claims 4 and 10 are canceled.
Claims 20-22 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/08/2025, regarding Claim Objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous objections have been overcome.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/08/2025, regarding Claim Rejections under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejections have been overcome.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/08/2025, regarding the prior art rejection of Claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant appears to argue that Ruf does not teach that the processing module is configured to process the LHCP and RHCP signal responses to provide digital signal pre-conditioning and channel correlation. Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that Ruf teaches a digital signal processing architecture that provides signal conditioning and correlator banks ([p. 3354]), which is tantamount to the claimed processing module providing signal pre-conditioning and channel correlation.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/08/2025, regarding the prior art rejection of Claim 19 have been fully considered but are moot because they do not apply to the specific combination of references being used in the current rejections.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 is objected to for the following informalities:
In Claim 9, line 2, the word “oscillator1” appears to be a typo
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5-6, 8, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruf (C. Ruf et al., “Next Generation GNSS-R Instrument,” IGARSS 2020 - 2020 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, Waikoloa, HI, USA, 2020, pp. 3353-3356).
Regarding Claim 1, Ruf teaches:
A system configured to receive satellite signals, the system comprising:
a navigation antenna ([p. 3353]: “Zenith navigation antenna”) configured to (i) receive first satellite signals transmitted from a first type of satellite in a first frequency band and second satellite signals transmitted from the first type or a second type of satellite in a second frequency band ([p. 3353]: “The new instrument works with both low (L1/E1) and high (L5/E5) bandwidth signals from GPS and Galileo satellites”) (ii) generate … right hand circular polarization (RHCP) signal responses based on the first and second satellite signals ([p. 335]: “GNSS-R”; Examiner note: RHCP is standard for GNSS signals);
a plurality of science antennas ([p. 3353]: “nadir dual frequency science antenna”) configured to (i) receive the first satellite signals in the first frequency band and the second satellite signals in the second frequency band as reflected from a ground surface ([p. 3353]: “The new instrument works with both low (L1/E1) and high (L5/E5) bandwidth signals from GPS and Galileo satellites”) and (ii) generate LHCP signal responses and RHCP signal responses based on the first and second satellite signals ([p. 3353]: “The new antenna receives both co-pol (left hand circular polarized) and cross-pol (right hand circular polarized) signals reflected from the surface.”); and
a receiver module ([p.3354]: Figure 1) including
a processing module ([p. 3353]: “Digital Back End navigation processor”; [p. 3354]: “Digital Back End GNSS-R processor”), and
a plurality of receivers coupled between (i) the navigation antenna and the plurality of science antennas and (ii) the processing module ([p. 3353]: “RF Front End dual frequency analog receiver/signal conditioner/digitizer”),
wherein the processing module is configured to receive the LHCP signal responses and the RHCP signal responses from the navigation antenna and the plurality of science antennas via the plurality of receivers and generate telemetry data based on the received LHCP and RHCP signal responses ([p. 3353]: “co-pol (left hand circular polarized) and cross-pol (right hand circular polarized) signals”; [p. 3354]: “digital signal processing (DSP) architecture”; [p. 3355]: “navigation solutions”; “delay-Doppler maps”),
wherein the processing module includes a logic module configured to process the LHCP signal responses and the RHCP signal responses to provide digital signal pre-conditioning and channel correlation ([p. 3354]: “digital signal processing (DSP) architecture”; “signal conditioning and correlator banks”).
Ruf does not explicitly teach: a navigation antenna configured to generate left hand circular polarization (LHCP) signals and right hand circular polarization (RHCP) signals.
However, in that Ruf teaches science antennas configured to generate LHCP and RHCP signal responses, and in that dual-polarization antennas are well-known in the art, it would have been obvious to modify Ruf and use a navigation antenna configured to generate both LHCP and RHCP signals. Using a dual-polarization antenna is beneficial for making the system compatible with a wider variety of satellites, and for improving calibration and navigation performance.
Regarding Claim 2, Ruf teaches: wherein the processing module includes a system on a chip (SOC) comprising first and second processor cores and field programmable gate array (FPGA) logic configured to process the LHCP signal responses and the RHCP signal responses received from the navigation antenna and the plurality of science antennas ([p. 3353]: “Digital Back End navigation processor”; [p. 3354]: “Digital Back End GNSS-R processor”; “system-on-chip (SOC)”; “FPGA”),
the logic module provides processed correlated data to the first and second processor cores ([p. 3353]: “the ARM cores run the primary signal processing software (SPSW), which control receiver operations and processes correlator bank outputs.”).
Regarding Claim 3, Ruf teaches: the system further comprising low noise amplifiers arranged between (i) the navigation antenna and the plurality of science antennas and (ii) the plurality of receivers ([p. 3353]: “RF Front End dual frequency low noise amplifier (LNA)”).
Regarding Claim 5, Ruf teaches: wherein the first satellite signals correspond to global positioning system (GPS) satellite signals and the second satellite signals correspond to Galileo satellite signals ([p. 3353]: “...signals from GPS and Galileo satellites”).
Regarding Claim 6, Ruf teaches: wherein the first frequency band is an L1/E1 frequency band and the second frequency band is an L5/E5 frequency band ([p. 3353]: “low (L1/E1) and high (L5/E5) bandwidth signals”).
Regarding Claim 8, Ruf teaches: wherein each of the plurality of receivers is configured to operate in at least two channels corresponding respectively to the first frequency band and the second frequency band ([p. 3353]: “low (L1/E1) and high (L5/E5) bandwidth signals”; “the exact number of parallel channels it can support depends on the number of high and low bandwidth signals”).
Regarding Claim 11, Ruf teaches: the system further comprising an antenna module that includes the plurality of science antennas ([p. 3353]: “five antennas”; Figure 1: Additional Science Antennas).
Regarding Claim 20, Ruf teaches: wherein the first and second processor cores are configured to process correlated data from the logic module according to a reflection measurement process, a low-level navigation process, and a high-level navigation process ([p. 3355]: “Common correlator resources are shared to track the direct path GNSS signals to form navigation solutions as well as the reflection path signals to form delay-Doppler maps (DDMs) science measurements.”; Examiner note: tracking GNSS signals is low-level, forming navigation solutions is high-level, and forming DDMs is reflections measurement processing.).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruf (C. Ruf et al., “Next Generation GNSS-R Instrument,” 2020), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang (US 7,471,241).
Regarding Claim 9, Ruf teaches: wherein
the receiver module includes an oscillator ([Fig. 1]: “TCXO” (Temperature Compensated Crystal Oscillator)); and
the processing module includes a sampler configured to sample the LHCP and RHCP signal responses transmitted from the navigation antenna and the plurality of science antennas ([p. 3353]: “RF Front End dual frequency analog receiver/signal conditioner/digitizer”; [Fig. 1]: “Sample Control/Source MUX”),
wherein the sampler is configured to generate data packets from sampling the LHCP and RHCP signal responses in accordance with a clock signal generated with the oscillator ([Fig. 1]: “Clock Distribution”; “Sample Control/Source MUX”),
wherein the processing module is configured pass the data packets through a processing loop having a channel selection multiplexer ([Fig. 1]: “Sample Control/Source MUX”).
Ruf does not explicitly teach – but Yang teaches: a Doppler mixer and a quadrature encoder (Yang [col. 2, line35-60]: “mixers”; “quadrature components”; “frequency error discriminators”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a Doppler mixer and quadrature encoder, as taught by Yang. Doppler mixers and quadrature encoders are standard components in GNSS systems and required for, e.g., compensating Doppler shifts and aligning PRN codes, respectively.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruf (C. Ruf et al., “Next Generation GNSS-R Instrument,” 2020) in view of Yang (US 7,471,241), as applied to Claim 9, and further in view of Jurkovic (Jurkovic et al., “Remote firmware update for constrained embedded systems,” 2014).
Regarding Claim 7, Ruf teaches: wherein the receiver module includes a command and data handling (CDH) module configured to receive the telemetry data from the processing module and transmit the telemetry data from the receiver module ([p. 3355]: “A Command and Data Handling (CDH) subsystem … serves as a robust system monitor and interface between the receiver and external interfaces.”), wherein the CDH module is configured to:
control power distribution to the receiver module with a power control module that receives power from a power source external to the receiver module ([p. 3354]: “Power supplies and power conditioning for instrument subsystems/power interface to spacecraft”);
… perform instrument housekeeping functions, and monitor system parameters for the receiver module ([p. 3355]: “system monitor”); and
provide configuration information and uplinked commands to the processing module ([p. 3355]: “interface between the receiver and external interfaces”).
Ruf does not explicitly teach that the CDH subsystem is configured to: control firmware and software updates.
However, Jurkovic teaches software and firmware updates in GNSS/GPS embedded systems (Jurkovic [p. 1019]: “software or firmware upgrade”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the CDH subsystem to control firmware and software updates, as taught by Jurkovic. Updating software/firmware is considered ordinary and well-known in the art, and configuring the system of Ruf to update software/firmware is beneficial for improving system flexibility and preventing malfunctions (Jurkovic [p. 1019]).
Claims 12, 14-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruf (C. Ruf et al., “Next Generation GNSS-R Instrument,” 2020), as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of Doyle (US 4,660,048).
Regarding Claim 12, Ruf teaches: wherein each of the plurality of science antennas includes:
a substrate supporting a printed circuit board layer that includes first and second output ports ([p. 3354]: “each having a co- and cross-polar output channel”; Figure 1; Figure 4); …
Ruf does not explicitly teach – but Doyle teaches: first and second feeding pins extending from the printed circuit board layer, the first and second feeding pins configured to carry LHCP and RHCP signal responses output from the first and second output ports, respectively (Doyle [col. 2, line 15-50]: “Feed pins 30 pass through clearance holes 32 of the patch 16 and are soldered or wire bonded by leads 34 to the open circuit elements 28”; “with the capacitively coupled feedlines 22, 24, 18 and 20 (FIG. 1) being located at the 0, 90, 180, and 270 degree points, a circularly polarized antenna is provided.”).
It would have been obvious to modify Ruf use science antennas which include first and second feeding pins configured to carry LHCP and RHCP signal responses output from the first and second output ports, respectively, as taught by Doyle. Antennas including feeding pins are conventional in the art, and using first and second feeding pins to carry the LHCP and RHCP signal responses is beneficial for maintaining the circular polarizations.
Regarding Claim 14, Ruf teaches: wherein the antenna module comprises:
a mounting board (Figures 1, 4); …
Ruf does not explicitly teach – but Doyle teaches: …
a feeding network comprised of microstrip traces arranged on or embedded within the mounting board (Doyle [col. 1, line 15]: “microstrip feed”; [col. 2, lines 29-31]: “The hybrid circuit 44, which is itself a stripline package, is mounted upon a metal clad ground plane 12.”),
wherein the first and second feeding pins of each of the plurality of science antennas are coupled to the feeding network and extend from a device mounting panel through the substrate to the printed circuit board layer (Doyle [col. 2, lines 15-20]: “Feed pins 30”; “Patch 40 is separated from a hybrid feed circuit 44 by a dielectric 42.”; Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to modify Ruf and arrange a feeding network on the mounting board, couple the first and second feeding pins to the feeding network, and let the pins extend from the mounting panel through the substrate to the printed circuit board layer, taught by Doyle. Using a feeding network comprising feed lines, feed pins, and various antenna layers is considered ordinary and well known in the art, and is beneficial for improving antenna performance (Doyle [col. 1, lines 39-40]).
Regarding Claim 15, Ruf does not explicitly teach – but Doyle teaches: wherein the feeding network includes an LHCP path coupled to the first feeding pins and an RHCP path coupled to the second feeding pins (Doyle [col. 2, line 15-50]: “Feed pins 30”; “with the capacitively coupled feedlines 22, 24, 18 and 20 (FIG. 1) being located at the 0, 90, 180, and 270 degree points, a circularly polarized antenna is provided.”).
It would have been obvious to modify Ruf and include an LHCP path coupled to the first feeding pins and an RHCP path coupled to the second pins, as taught by Doyle. Coupling antenna paths to feeding pins is conventional in the art, and using first and second feeding paths for the LHCP and RHCP signal responses is beneficial for maintaining the circular polarizations (Doyle [col. 2, line 15-50]).
Regarding Claim 16, Ruf does not explicitly teach – but Doyle teaches: the system further comprising a spacer layer arranged between the mounting board and the device mounting panel to electrically isolate the feeding network from a ground plane of the device mounting panel (Doyle [col. 2, lines 35-40]: “The metal clad ground plane 12 is a copper clad Teflon fiberglass layer mounted upon a honeycomb substrate 48 mounted upon a mounting plate 50.”).
It would have been obvious to modify Ruf and include a spacer layer between the mounting board and the device mounting panel, as taught by Doyle. Spacer layers are conventional in the art and are beneficial for reducing interference between antenna elements.
Regarding Claim 18, Ruf does not explicitly teach – but Doyle teaches: wherein the spacer layer is honeycombed (Doyle [col. 2, lines 35-40]: “honeycomb substrate 48”).
It would have been obvious to modify Ruf and use a honeycombed spacer layer, as taught by Doyle. Honeycombed space layers are beneficial for reducing dielectric loss and reducing antenna weight.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruf (C. Ruf et al., “Next Generation GNSS-R Instrument,” 2020) in view of Doyle (US 4,660,048), as applied to Claim 12 above, and further in view of Doane (US 9,711,866).
Regarding Claim 13, Ruf does not explicitly teach – but Doane teaches: wherein each of the plurality of science antennas further includes a parasitic pin extending from the printed circuit board layer (Doane [col. 4, line 13]: “parasitic pins”; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to modify Ruf and include a parasitic pin with each of the science antennas, as taught by Doane. Parasitic pins are beneficial for increasing gain of directional beams (Doane [col. 4, lines 30-34]).
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruf (C. Ruf et al., “Next Generation GNSS-R Instrument,” 2020) in view of Doyle (US 4,660,048), as applied to Claim 16 above, and further in view of Milroy (US 2020/0381842).
Regarding Claim 17, Ruf does not explicitly teach – but Lim teaches: wherein the spacer layer includes channels defined around traces of the feeding network (Milroy [0004]: “the spacer includes a plurality of apertures defined by cell walls, wherein the each aperture aligns with an upper patch antenna element and a lower patent antenna element from the patch antenna array.”).
It would have been obvious to modify Ruf and include channels defined around traces of the feeding network in the spacer, as taught by Milroy. Defining channels around the feeding network is beneficial for reducing dielectric loss.
Claims 19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruf (C. Ruf et al., “Next Generation GNSS-R Instrument,” 2020) in view of Gleason (Gleason “A Real-Time On-Orbit Signal Tracking Algorithm for GNSS Surface Observations,” 2019).
Regarding Claim 19, Ruf teaches:
A system configured to receive satellite signals, the system comprising:
a navigation antenna ([p. 3353]: “Zenith navigation antenna”) configured to (i) receive first satellite signals transmitted from a first type of satellite in a first frequency band and second satellite signals transmitted from the first type or a second type of satellite in a second frequency band ([p. 3353]: “The new instrument works with both low (L1/E1) and high (L5/E5) bandwidth signals from GPS and Galileo satellites”) and (ii) generate … right hand circular polarization (RHCP) signal responses based on the first and second satellite signals ([p. 335]: “GNSS-R”; Examiner note: RHCP is standard for GNSS signals);
a plurality of science antennas ([p. 3353]: “nadir dual frequency science antenna”) configured to (i) receive the first satellite signals in the first frequency band and the second satellite signals in the second frequency band as reflected from a ground surface ([p. 3353]: “The new instrument works with both low (L1/E1) and high (L5/E5) bandwidth signals from GPS and Galileo satellites”) and (ii) generate LHCP signal responses and RHCP signal responses based on the first and second satellite signals ([p. 3353]: “The new antenna receives both co-pol (left hand circular polarized) and cross-pol (right hand circular polarized) signals reflected from the surface.”);
a receiver module including ([p.3354]: Figure 1) including
a processing module ([p. 3353]: “Digital Back End navigation processor”; [p. 3354]: “Digital Back End GNSS-R processor”), and
a plurality of receivers coupled between (i) the navigation antenna and the plurality of science antennas and (ii) the processing module ([p. 3353]: “RF Front End dual frequency analog receiver/signal conditioner/digitizer”), wherein each of the plurality of receivers is configured to operate in at least two channels corresponding respectively to the first frequency band and the second frequency band ([p. 3353]: “low (L1/E1) and high (L5/E5) bandwidth signals”; “the exact number of parallel channels it can support depends on the number of high and low bandwidth signals”); and
low noise amplifiers arranged between (i) the navigation antenna and the plurality of science antennas and (ii) the plurality of receivers ([p. 3353]: “RF Front End dual frequency low noise amplifier (LNA)”),
wherein the processing module is configured to receive the LHCP signal responses and the RHCP signal responses from the navigation antenna and the plurality of science antennas via the plurality of receivers and generate telemetry data based on the received LHCP and RHCP signal responses ([p. 3353]: “co-pol (left hand circular polarized) and cross-pol (right hand circular polarized) signals”; [p. 3354]: “digital signal processing (DSP) architecture”; [p. 3355]: “navigation solutions”; “delay-Doppler maps”), and
wherein the processing module includes a system on a chip (SOC) comprising first and second processor cores and field programmable gate array (FPGA) logic configured to process the LHCP signal responses and the RHCP signal responses received from the navigation antenna and the plurality of science antennas ([p. 3353]: “Digital Back End navigation processor”; [p. 3354]: “Digital Back End GNSS-R processor”; “system-on-chip (SOC)”; “FPGA”),
wherein the processing module includes a logic module configured to process the LHCP signal responses and the RHCP signal responses to provide digital signal pre-conditioning and channel correlation ([p. 3354]: “digital signal processing (DSP) architecture”; “signal conditioning and correlator banks”).
wherein the first and second processor cores are configured to process correlated data from the logic module according to a reflection measurement process, a low-level navigation process, and a high-level navigation process ([p. 3355]: “Common correlator resources are shared to track the direct path GNSS signals to form navigation solutions as well as the reflection path signals to form delay-Doppler maps (DDMs) science measurements.”; Examiner note: tracking GNSS signals is low-level, forming navigation solutions is high-level, and forming DDMs is reflections measurement processing.),
Ruf does not explicitly teach: a navigation antenna configured to generate left hand circular polarization (LHCP) signal responses and right hand circular polarization (RHCP) signal responses.
However, in that Ruf teaches science antennas configured to generate LHCP and RHCP signal responses, and in that dual-polarization antennas are well-known in the art, it would have been obvious to modify Ruf and use a navigation antenna configured to generate both LHCP and RHCP signals. Using a dual-polarization antenna is beneficial for making the system compatible with a wider variety of satellites, and for improving calibration and navigation performance.
Ruf does not explicitly teach – but Gleason teaches:
wherein the first and second processor cores are configured to implement an internal receiver dynamics model and a transmitter dynamics model based on processing the correlated data according to the reflection measurement process, the low-level navigation process, and the high-level navigation process (Gleason [pg. 10]: “position and velocity was estimated using the direct navigation signals”; “DDM”; [pg. 15]: “dynamic models”), wherein the internal receiver dynamics model is configured to predict an upcoming receiver position and the transmitter dynamics model is configured to predict satellite geometry information (Gleason [pg. 10]: “The GNSS transmitter positions and velocities were obtained from the published GPS ephemeris over the collection interval.”; [pg. 15]: “extrapolation of the transmitter and receiver positions based on simple dynamic models”), and
wherein the first and second processor cores are configured to perform measurement scheduling based on the upcoming receiver position and the satellite geometry information to predict specular points (Gleason [p. 12]: “Determine the surface specular points for a set of GNSS transmitters as described in Section 3. Generate a set of vectors from the GNSS-R satellite to the estimated specular reflection points.”), assign a figure-of-merit to potential measurements (Gleason [p. 12]: “Map the specular point direction in the body frame to an on board map of the GNSS-R instrument science antenna patterns figure of merit.”), select measurements to perform (Gleason [pg. 12]: “Rank the measurement points for all the GPS transmitters from highest to lowest figure of merit.”), and formulate an open-loop correlator command (Gleason [pgs. 12-13]: “open loop track”; “Prioritize the reflections based on the highest figure of merit estimates and the available processing resources available within the GNSS-R receiver digital signal processing channels”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ruf and implement receiver and transmitter dynamic models and implement an open loop signal tracking technique, as taught by Gleason. Using dynamic models to predict transmitter and receiver positions is ordinary and well-known in GNSS applications, and Gleason’s open loop signal tracking technique is beneficial for improving the accuracy and convergence speed of the system.
Regarding Claim 21, Ruf does not explicitly teach – but Gleason teaches: wherein the first and second processor cores are configured to implement an internal receiver dynamics model and a transmitter dynamics model based on processing the correlated data according to the reflection measurement process, the low-level navigation process, and the high-level navigation process, wherein the internal receiver dynamics model is configured to predict an upcoming receiver position and the transmitter dynamics model is configured to predict satellite geometry information (Gleason [pg. 10]; [pg. 15]).
The rationale to modify Ruf with the teachings of Gleason would persist from Claim 19.
Regarding Claim 22, Ruf does not explicitly teach – but Gleason teaches: wherein the first and second processor cores are configured to perform measurement scheduling based on the upcoming receiver position and the satellite geometry information to predict specular points, assign a figure-of-merit to potential measurements, select measurements to perform, and formulate an open-loop correlator command (Gleason [pgs. 12-13]).
The rationale to modify Ruf with the teachings of Gleason would persist from Claim 19.
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 NOAH Y. ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-0170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-4PM.
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, William J. Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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.
/NOAH YI MIN ZHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648