Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed January 19, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 13-18, and 20-22 remain pending in this application. Claims 1, 9, 17, and 20 have been amended. Claims 4, 11-12, and 19 have been cancelled. Claims 21-22 are new. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome all rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in the Non-Final Rejection filed November 18, 2025. In addition, the Non-Final Rejection filed November 18, 2025 has been retracted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed January 19, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-4, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Dekel et al. (US 20240219990 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the capacitance module" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the sake of examination, Examiner has interpreted the claim as instead reading “the module”.
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 1-3, 5-10, 15-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rofougaran et al. (US 20120092284 A1), hereinafter Rofougaran, in view of Dekel et al. (US 20240219990 A1), hereinafter Dekel.
Regarding claims 1, 17, and 20, Rofougaran teaches a capacitance module and a computer-program product, the computer-program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium (para. 97, “The processing module 88 may have an associated memory and/or memory element, which may be a single memory device, a plurality of memory devices, and/or embedded circuitry of the processing module 88. Such a memory device may be a read-only memory, random access memory, volatile memory, non-volatile memory, static memory, dynamic memory, flash memory, cache memory, and/or any device that stores digital information.”) storing instructions executable by a processor to:
a stack of layers disposed within an electronic device, at least one capacitance electrode on a surface of a first layer of the stack of layers, and a radar antenna incorporated into the stack of layers (para. 90, “FIG. 11 is a diagram of another embodiment of a three-dimensional touchscreen of a portable computing device 76. In FIG. 11, the array of transmit/receive RF radar antennas are incorporated into the conductive layers of the capacitive touch screen, so that the row/column electrical lines are shared by the RF radar antennas and the touchscreen capacitors 78. In one embodiment, the touchscreen operates in either an RF radar mode or a capacitive mode. The RF radar mode may be automatically deactivated when a change in capacitance is detected or the user may manually activate or deactivate the RF radar mode. In another embodiment, the touchscreen operates in both the RF radar mode and the capacitive mode simultaneously. For example, some applications may enable a user to augment a 2D capacitive touch command with a 3D RF radar gesture.”),
a controller in communication with the radar antenna, memory in communication with the controller, and programmed instructions stored in the memory (para. 97, “The processing module 88 may be a single processing device or a plurality of processing devices. Such a processing device may be a microprocessor, micro-controller, digital signal processor, microcomputer, central processing unit, field programmable gate array, programmable logic device, state machine, logic circuitry, analog circuitry, digital circuitry, and/or any device that manipulates signals [analog and/or digital] based on hard coding of the circuitry and/or operational instructions. The processing module 88 may have an associated memory and/or memory element, which may be a single memory device, a plurality of memory devices, and/or embedded circuitry of the processing module 88.”) and configured, when executed, to cause the controller to:
receive a radar signal with the radar antenna, and determine a characteristic of an object within a sensing range of the capacitance module based, at least in part, on the received radar signal (para. 69, “In still another embodiment, the RF radar circuit modules 54 further process the radar signal measurements to calculate location information indicating the distance and/or angle from the RF antenna of the multimode RF unit 34 to the user-controlled object [e.g., the user's digit/extremity or stylus], and provide the location information to the RF radar processing module 48.”), but fails to teach programmed instructions configured, when executed, to cause the controller to:
change a power setting of the electronic device in response to determining the characteristic.
However, Dekel teaches programmed instructions configured, when executed, to cause the controller to:
change a power setting of the electronic device in response to determining the characteristic (para. 27, “In some embodiments, power management system(s) 114 may determine, based on proximity information from sensor(s) 106, that user device 102 is in proximity to an obstruction that may reduce the reliability or utility of camera-based presence detection. For example, the first trigger condition may include the proximity information satisfying a pre-determined relationship with a distance threshold. In some embodiments, the proximity information may be based on, for example, a radar-based sensor, a sonar-based or ultrasonic-based sensor, an infrared-based sensor, a radio frequency sensor, a lidar sensor, and/or a biometric sensor.”).
Rofougaran and Dekel are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of radar-based sensing in touchscreen displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rofougaran with the teachings of Dekel with the motivation of managing power consumption.
Regarding claim 2, Rofougaran in view of Dekel teaches the capacitance module of claim 1,
wherein the capacitance module is incorporated into a touch screen (Rofougaran; para. 90, “FIG. 11 is a diagram of another embodiment of a three-dimensional touchscreen of a portable computing device 76. In FIG. 11, the array of transmit/receive RF radar antennas are incorporated into the conductive layers of the capacitive touch screen, so that the row/column electrical lines are shared by the RF radar antennas and the touchscreen capacitors 78.”).
Regarding claim 3, Rofougaran in view of Dekel teaches the capacitance module of claim 1,
wherein the capacitance module is positioned next to a working surface of an electronic device, wherein the working surface includes a keyboard, and the capacitance module is offset from the keyboard (Rofougaran; para. 10, “The flat touch screen includes capacitive touch screen technology to provide a virtual keyboard, […] and provides the display.”; it is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the display layer of a touchpad on which a virtual keyboard is implemented is separate from capacitive layers; para. 56, “The portable computing device [e.g., a laptop computer, a tablet computer 10, a cellular telephone, a video gaming device, an audio/video recording and playback device, etc.] may communicate concurrently, or separately, with one or more of a cellular telephone 12, a wireless headset 14, a wireless power transmitter 16, a wireless communication device 18 (e.g., a tablet computer, a keyboard, […]”).
Regarding claim 5, Rofougaran in view of Dekel teaches the capacitance module of claim 1,
wherein the characteristic is a movement pattern (Rofougaran; para. 90, “ In another embodiment, the touchscreen operates in both the RF radar mode and the capacitive mode simultaneously. For example, some applications may enable a user to augment a 2D capacitive touch command with a 3D RF radar gesture.”).
Regarding claim 6, Rofougaran in view of Dekel teaches the capacitance module of claim 1,
wherein the characteristic is a location of the object in relation to the capacitance module (Rofougaran; para. 69, “In still another embodiment, the RF radar circuit modules 54 further process the radar signal measurements to calculate location information indicating the distance and/or angle from the RF antenna of the multimode RF unit 34 to the user-controlled object [e.g., the user's digit/extremity or stylus], and provide the location information to the RF radar processing module 48.”).
Regarding claim 7, Rofougaran in view of Dekel teaches the capacitance module of claim 1, wherein programmed instructions cause the controller, when executed, to:
compare a received feature of the received radar signal against a stored feature of a profile (Rofougaran; para. 76, “ For example, in one embodiment, the RF radar processing module can compare a current 3D location of the user-controlled object to one or more previous 3D locations of the user-controlled object to determine both the distance between the locations and the direction of motion from the previous location(s) to the current location. The RF radar processing module can then use the distance and direction of motion information to identify a particular 3D gesture, which corresponds to a particular 3D input signal.”; of Rofougaran, Examiner is construing each previously determined 3D location of the user-controlled object, and some kind of data associated with a gesture that is implicitly stored, both as examples of stored features of profiles that are compared to received features of the received radar signal).
Regarding claim 8, Rofougaran in view of Dekel teaches the capacitance module of claim 1, wherein programmed instructions cause the controller, when executed, to:
compare a received feature of the received radar signal against a stored feature of a profile, and determine that the object is a user of an electronic device based, at least in part, on the comparison (Rofougaran; para. 119, “FIG. 18 is a logic diagram of an embodiment of a method of operation of a portable computing device that begins with the RF radar processing module determining whether an object has been detected via RF radar 122. For example, the RF radar processing module may receive input from one or more RF radar circuits indicating that an object has been detected via RF radar. If yes, the method continues by determining whether the object is a gesturing object [e.g., a user controlled object, such as a finger, hand or stylus] 124. If yes, the RF radar processing module determines the location [three-dimensional (x, y, z) coordinates] of the gesturing object 126.”).
Regarding claim 9, Rofougaran in view of Dekel teaches the capacitance module of claim 8, but Rofougaran fails to teach
wherein programmed instructions cause the controller, when executed, to change the power management setting of the electronic device in response to determining that the object moved out of the sensing range.
However, Dekel teaches
wherein programmed instructions cause the controller, when executed, to change the power management setting of the electronic device in response to determining that the object moved out of the sensing range (para. 47, “In some embodiments, power management system(s) 114 may determine, based on proximity information from sensor(s) 106, that user device 102 is not in proximity to an obstruction that reduces the reliability or utility of camera-based presence detection. For example, the second trigger condition may include the proximity information satisfying a second pre-determined relationship with a distance threshold. In some embodiments, the proximity information may be based on, for example, a radar-based sensor, a sonar-based or ultrasonic-based sensor, an infrared-based sensor, a radio frequency sensor, a lidar sensor, and/or a biometric sensor.”; para. 111, “ In an embodiment, the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: receive updated context information while the user device is in the low-power mode; determine, based on the updates context information, that a second trigger condition is satisfied, the satisfaction of the second trigger condition being indicative of an increased reliability or utility of the camera-based presence detection system; and perform, based on the satisfaction of the second trigger condition, one or more of: enable a camera of the camera-based presence detection system; increase a frame rate of the camera; increase a frame processing rate of an image processing system of the camera-based presence detection system; […].”; Examiner is construing “the sensing range” as claimed as referring to a certain range from a radar sensor).
Rofougaran and Dekel are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of radar-based sensing in touchscreen displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rofougaran with the teachings of Dekel with the motivation of managing power consumption.
Regarding claim 10, Rofougaran in view of Dekel teaches the capacitance module of claim 1, but Rofougaran fails to teach
wherein the characteristic is a position of a lid of the electronic device.
However, Dekel teaches
wherein the characteristic is a position of a lid of the electronic device (para. 31, “In some embodiments, power management system(s) 114 may determine, based on hinge angle information from sensor(s) 106, that a lid or cover of user device 102 is in a position that may reduce the reliability or utility of camera-based presence detection. For example, the first trigger condition may include the hinge angle information satisfying a pre-determined relationship with an angle threshold.”; para. 47, “In some embodiments, power management system(s) 114 may determine, based on proximity information from sensor(s) 106, that user device 102 is not in proximity to an obstruction that reduces the reliability or utility of camera-based presence detection. For example, the second trigger condition may include the proximity information satisfying a second pre-determined relationship with a distance threshold. In some embodiments, the proximity information may be based on, for example, a radar-based sensor, a sonar-based or ultrasonic-based sensor, an infrared-based sensor, a radio frequency sensor, a lidar sensor, and/or a biometric sensor.”; with regard to proximity information of an obstructing object detected by a radar sensor, the object may be a lid or cover).
Rofougaran and Dekel are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of radar-based sensing in touchscreen displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rofougaran with the teachings of Dekel with the motivation of determining usage of the electronic device in the interest of managing power consumption.
Regarding claim 15, Rofougaran in view of Dekel teaches the capacitance module of claim 1, wherein programmed instructions cause the controller, when executed, to:
compare a received feature of the received radar signal against a stored feature of a profile, and determine that the object is moving proximate a keyboard of the electronic device, and determine that the movement of the object is a predetermined gesture (Rofougaran; para. 10, “The flat touch screen includes capacitive touch screen technology to provide a virtual keyboard, a passive stylus pen (e.g., one touch selection based on X-Y coordinates of the touch), two-dimensional touch commands (e.g., sensing touch of the screen by one or more fingers and detecting movement in the X-Y dimensions of the one or more fingers), and provides the display.”; para. 76, “ For example, in one embodiment, the RF radar processing module can compare a current 3D location of the user-controlled object to one or more previous 3D locations of the user-controlled object to determine both the distance between the locations and the direction of motion from the previous location(s) to the current location. The RF radar processing module can then use the distance and direction of motion information to identify a particular 3D gesture, which corresponds to a particular 3D input signal.”; of Rofougaran, Examiner is construing each previously determined 3D location of the user-controlled object, and some kind of data associated with a gesture that is implicitly stored in a memory, both as examples of stored features of profiles that are compared to received features of the received radar signal; para. 90, “FIG. 11 is a diagram of another embodiment of a three-dimensional touchscreen of a portable computing device 76. In FIG. 11, the array of transmit/receive RF radar antennas are incorporated into the conductive layers of the capacitive touch screen, so that the row/column electrical lines are shared by the RF radar antennas and the touchscreen capacitors 78.”).
Regarding claim 16, Rofougaran in view of Dekel teaches the capacitance module of claim 1, wherein programmed instructions cause the controller, when executed, to:
compare a received feature of the received radar signal against a stored feature of a profile; and determine that the object is moving proximate a display of the electronic device; and determine that the movement of the object is a predetermined gesture (Rofougaran; para. 76, “ For example, in one embodiment, the RF radar processing module can compare a current 3D location of the user-controlled object to one or more previous 3D locations of the user-controlled object to determine both the distance between the locations and the direction of motion from the previous location(s) to the current location. The RF radar processing module can then use the distance and direction of motion information to identify a particular 3D gesture, which corresponds to a particular 3D input signal.”; Examiner is construing each previously determined 3D location of the user-controlled object, and some kind of data associated with a gesture that is implicitly stored in a memory, both as examples of stored features of profiles that are compared to received features of the received radar signal; para. 90, “FIG. 11 is a diagram of another embodiment of a three-dimensional touchscreen of a portable computing device 76. In FIG. 11, the array of transmit/receive RF radar antennas are incorporated into the conductive layers of the capacitive touch screen, so that the row/column electrical lines are shared by the RF radar antennas and the touchscreen capacitors 78.”).
Regarding claim 18, Rofougaran in view of Dekel teaches the module of claim 16,
wherein the display component is a touch screen (Rofougaran; para. 10, “The flat touch screen includes capacitive touch screen technology to provide a virtual keyboard, a passive stylus pen [e.g., one touch selection based on X-Y coordinates of the touch], two-dimensional touch commands [e.g., sensing touch of the screen by one or more fingers and detecting movement in the X-Y dimensions of the one or more fingers], and provides the display.”).
Regarding claim 21, Rofougaran in view of Dekel teaches the module of claim 17, but Rofougaran fails to teach
wherein the characteristic is a position of a lid of the electronic device.
However, Dekel teaches
wherein the characteristic is a position of a lid of the electronic device (para. 31, “In some embodiments, power management system(s) 114 may determine, based on hinge angle information from sensor(s) 106, that a lid or cover of user device 102 is in a position that may reduce the reliability or utility of camera-based presence detection. For example, the first trigger condition may include the hinge angle information satisfying a pre-determined relationship with an angle threshold.”; para. 47, “In some embodiments, power management system(s) 114 may determine, based on proximity information from sensor(s) 106, that user device 102 is not in proximity to an obstruction that reduces the reliability or utility of camera-based presence detection. For example, the second trigger condition may include the proximity information satisfying a second pre-determined relationship with a distance threshold. In some embodiments, the proximity information may be based on, for example, a radar-based sensor, a sonar-based or ultrasonic-based sensor, an infrared-based sensor, a radio frequency sensor, a lidar sensor, and/or a biometric sensor.”; with regard to proximity information of an obstructing object detected by a radar sensor, the object may be a lid or cover).
Rofougaran and Dekel are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of radar-based sensing in touchscreen displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rofougaran with the teachings of Dekel with the motivation of determining usage of the electronic device in the interest of managing power consumption.
Regarding claim 22, Rofougaran in view of Dekel teaches the computer-program product of claim 20, but Rofougaran fails to teach
wherein the characteristic is a position of a lid of the electronic device.
However, Dekel teaches
wherein the characteristic is a position of a lid of the electronic device (para. 31, “In some embodiments, power management system(s) 114 may determine, based on hinge angle information from sensor(s) 106, that a lid or cover of user device 102 is in a position that may reduce the reliability or utility of camera-based presence detection. For example, the first trigger condition may include the hinge angle information satisfying a pre-determined relationship with an angle threshold.”; para. 47, “In some embodiments, power management system(s) 114 may determine, based on proximity information from sensor(s) 106, that user device 102 is not in proximity to an obstruction that reduces the reliability or utility of camera-based presence detection. For example, the second trigger condition may include the proximity information satisfying a second pre-determined relationship with a distance threshold. In some embodiments, the proximity information may be based on, for example, a radar-based sensor, a sonar-based or ultrasonic-based sensor, an infrared-based sensor, a radio frequency sensor, a lidar sensor, and/or a biometric sensor.”; with regard to proximity information of an obstructing object detected by a radar sensor, the object may be a lid or cover).
Rofougaran and Dekel are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of radar-based sensing in touchscreen displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rofougaran with the teachings of Dekel with the motivation of determining usage of the electronic device in the interest of managing power consumption.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rofougaran in view of Dekel and further in view of Va et al. (US 20250004561 A1), hereinafter Va.
Regarding claim 13, Rofougaran in view of Dekel teaches the capacitance module of claim 1, but fails to teach
wherein the characteristic includes that the object is a user of an electronic device and that the user moved out of the sensing range.
However, Va teaches
wherein the characteristic includes that the object is a user of an electronic device and that the user moved out of the sensing range (para. 37, “The movement of the fingers might be masked out [at least in part] by the stronger reflections from the knuckle/hand Limited angle resolution may prevent differentiation between a single-finger movement versus multiple-fingers movement, especially when the fingers move together in the same direction. The shape and size of the user's hand and fingers as well as the manner of how the gesture is performed [e.g., the speed profile] could also have large influence on the captured radar signals.”; para. 93, “The gesture mode triggering mechanism 950 can apply multiple methods of triggering, for example by applying application-based triggering or proximity-based triggering. In the case of applying proximity-based triggering, the gesture detection mode is activated when an object in close proximity to the radar is detected in the ROI, such as when the gesture mode triggering mechanism 950 receives an indicator from the proximity detection module 940 indicating the target object is inside the ROI. The gesture mode triggering mechanism 950 puts or maintains the gesture detection mode in the OFF state if the user [i.e., target object] is located outside of the ROI. In certain embodiments, to save power and avoid using the gesture mode when the user is likely performing a touchscreen gesture as opposed to an in-air gesture, the gesture mode triggering mechanism 950 puts the gesture detection mode in the ON state in response to a determination that the user is located inside the ROI, but turns OFF the gesture detection mode when the user is located inside the second area 122.”; para. 95, “In any case, information related to the signal strength, Doppler [i.e., speed] of the target, range of the targets, etc. could be extracted features used as the input for the detection performed by the ADM 960. Further, an activity end may also be detected by certain special events, such as an event that the target exits the ROI.”).
Rofougaran, Dekel, and Va are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of radar-based sensing in touchscreen displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rofougaran in view of Dekel with the teachings of Va with the motivation of determining usage of the electronic device in the interest of managing power consumption.
Regarding claim 14, Rofougaran in view of Dekel teaches the capacitance module of claim 1, but fails to teach
wherein the characteristic includes that the object is a user of an electronic device and that the user moved into the sensing range.
However, Va teaches
wherein the characteristic includes that the object is a user of an electronic device and that the user moved into the sensing range (para. 37, “The movement of the fingers might be masked out [at least in part] by the stronger reflections from the knuckle/hand Limited angle resolution may prevent differentiation between a single-finger movement versus multiple-fingers movement, especially when the fingers move together in the same direction. The shape and size of the user's hand and fingers as well as the manner of how the gesture is performed [e.g., the speed profile] could also have large influence on the captured radar signals.”; para. 93, “The gesture mode triggering mechanism 950 can apply multiple methods of triggering, for example by applying application-based triggering or proximity-based triggering. In the case of applying proximity-based triggering, the gesture detection mode is activated when an object in close proximity to the radar is detected in the ROI, such as when the gesture mode triggering mechanism 950 receives an indicator from the proximity detection module 940 indicating the target object is inside the ROI. The gesture mode triggering mechanism 950 puts or maintains the gesture detection mode in the OFF state if the user [i.e., target object] is located outside of the ROI. In certain embodiments, to save power and avoid using the gesture mode when the user is likely performing a touchscreen gesture as opposed to an in-air gesture, the gesture mode triggering mechanism 950 puts the gesture detection mode in the ON state in response to a determination that the user is located inside the ROI, but turns OFF the gesture detection mode when the user is located inside the second area 122.”; para. 95, “In any case, information related to the signal strength, Doppler [i.e., speed] of the target, range of the targets, etc. could be extracted features used as the input for the detection performed by the ADM 960. Further, an activity end may also be detected by certain special events, such as an event that the target exits the ROI.”).
Rofougaran, Dekel, and Va are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of radar-based sensing in touchscreen displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rofougaran in view of Dekel with the teachings of Va with the motivation of determining usage of the electronic device in the interest of managing power consumption.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC K HODAC whose telephone number is (571) 270-0123. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6.
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, VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/ERIC K HODAC/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights