DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The following addresses Applicant’s remarks/amendments dated 17 July 2026.
Claims 1, 3, and 17, were amended; no claims were added; Claim 2 was cancelled; Therefore Claims 1 and 3-28 are pending in the current application and will be addressed below.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed 17 July 2026 in response to the previous Office Action have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 1 on pages 8-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the specific combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 17 on page 7 has been fully considered and the objection to claim 17 has been withdrawn in response.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Parent Claim 1 requires “the film substrate of the platform being made of metal-base material to provide mechanical support for a reflector.” Dependent Claim 8 further specifies that the film substrate is “a bendable substrate.” However, paragraph [0125] of the specification explicitly teaches that providing the necessary structural stability and mechanical support for the mirror requires “a rigid construction to withstand mechanical stress effectively.”
The specification fails to provide written description support for a “bendable substrate” constructed of a metal-base material that functions as a mechanical support platform for the reflector. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art reading the specification at the time of filing would not recognize the inventor to have been in possession of a bendable substrate that provides mechanical support for the reflector. First, paragraph [0125] explicitly disparages non-rigid constructions by teaching that providing structural stability and mechanical support for the mirror requires a rigid construction to withstand mechanical stress effectively.
Additionally, the specification contains no technical guidance or structural features detailing how a bendable metal film substrate can maintain sufficient structural integrity to support the mirror platform during dynamic scanner operation without violating this explicit rigid requirement. Furthermore, the specification lacks any working examples, structural parameters, thickness ranges, or material configurations illustrating an operative bendable metal substrate supporting a mirror platform.
Accordingly, Claim 8 fails to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites that “the film substrate of the platform is made of a polymer-based material.” However, parent Claim 1 explicitly requires that the film substrate of the platform is “made of metal-base material.” Claim 6 directly contradicts the structural material limitations of parent claim 1 from which it depends, rendering the metes and bounds of claim 6 unclear and indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 8 recites that the film substrate is “a bendable substrate.” However, parent Claim 1 explicitly requires the film substrate to “provide mechanical support for a reflector.” The specification states in paragraph [0125] that providing mechanical support requires a “rigid construction.” Claim 8’s recitation of a bendable substrate contradicts the functional mechanical support limitation of parent Claim 1, rendering the metes and bounds of Claim 8 unclear and contradictory.
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, 12, 21, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes (US 2023/0130390 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 2020/0386870 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hughes teaches an electromagnetically-moveable scanner device for performing light scan ([0089] In some implementations, a scanner 11 may include an electronic driver that provides a drive current to the coil member of the coil assembly. The coil drive current may include (i) a low-amplitude current and (ii) a high-amplitude square-wave current signal. The low-amplitude current may cause the mirror 20 to pivot about the mirror axle in a forward-scan direction) used in a light ranging and detection (LiDAR) system ([Abstract] A scanner for a lidar system is configured to direct emitted light to scan a field of regard of the lidar system in accordance with a scan pattern), the device comprising:
a platform ([0009] the coil assembly may include a printed circuit board (PCB) that includes a circuit trace that forms a racetrack shape), the platform being pivotable about an axis ([0041] the racetrack shape of the coil member 44 causes current to flow in opposite directions in the first and second elongated portions 44a, 44b, resulting in a highly efficient design that causes the mirror 20 to pivot about the mirror axle A);
the reflector disposed on the platform ([0008]-[0009] The rear surface of the mirror may include a first elongated slot to receive the first edge of the coil assembly and a second elongated slot to receive the second edge of the coil assembly… the coil assembly may include a printed circuit board (PCB) that includes a circuit trace that forms a racetrack shape);
a plurality of magnets disposed in proximity to one or more edges of the film substrate and detached therefrom ([0041] As illustrated in FIG. 4, the magnet or magnets 54 are positioned such that they are generally disposed adjacent to an interior region of the coil member 44. Put differently, the magnet or magnets 54 are disposed in the gap formed between the first and second elongated portions 44a, 44b); and
one or more electrical windings installed on the platform, at least a part of the electrical windings being disposed underneath the reflector ([0039] the circuit trace 82 may be disposed on multiple layers of the PCB. For example, the circuit trace 82 may be disposed on two layers of the PCB, where the circuit trace 82 is arranged in a racetrack shape that spirals inward on one layer and a similar racetrack shape that spirals outward on the other layer),
wherein when the one or more electrical windings carry electric current, an interaction between magnetic fields formed by the plurality of the magnets and the electrical windings is operative to move the reflector electromagnetically to ([0033] The magnetic components provide a static magnetic field to the coil assembly 40. When an electrical current is provided to the coil assembly 40, the coil assembly 40 produces a magnetic field in response to the electrical current. The magnetic field produced by the coil assembly 40 interacts with the static magnetic field provided by the magnetic components, which in turn results in a rotational torque applied to the coil assembly 40. By applying a time-varying electrical current to the coil assembly 40, the mirror 20 can be made to move along a particular scan trajectory):
scan transmission light to a field-of-view of the LiDAR system along at least one direction ([0012] a light source (i.e., a laser) configured to emit light, a scanner configured to direct the emitted light to scan a field of regard (FOR) in accordance with a scan pattern); and
receive return light from the field-of-view, the return light being formed based on the transmission light ([0012] a receiver configured to detect at least a portion of emitted light scattered by one or more remote targets).
Hughes is not relied upon as teaching the film substrate of the platform being made of metal-base material to provide mechanical support for a reflector.
However, Wang teaches the film substrate of the platform being made of metal-base material ([0049] The front surface of the reflector substrate 130 is a metallic reflection plane) to provide mechanical support for a reflector ([0033] In this embodiment, the optical scanning apparatus includes a reflector, a reflector substrate and an extinction component, wherein the reflector is mounted on the reflector substrate, and the reflector is used to reflect the incident light signals).
Hughes and Wang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical scanning and LiDAR systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the platform substrate of Hughes to include a metal-base material providing mechanical support for the reflector of Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to enhance mechanical rigidity, structural support, and optical alignment during reflector actuation. By integrating Wang’s teaching of a metallic reflector substrate layer into Hughes’s scanner platform assembly, the system can maintain high structural stability while reflecting light signal accurately. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that combining Wang’s metallic reflector substrate with Hughes’s electromagnetic coil drive platform would yield the predictable result of a durable, mechanically supported electromagnetic scanner for LiDAR applications.
Regarding Claim 12, Hughes teaches that the reflector comprises an at least partial reflection mirror ([0006] The scanner includes a mirror and an actuator assembly. The mirror includes a reflective surface).
Regarding Claim 21, Hughes teaches that the reflector is made of Silicon or glass material ([0044] The polygon mirror 60 may be made from any suitable material, such as for example, glass).
Regarding Claim 28, Hughes teaches that one or more characteristics of the plurality of magnets and one or more characteristics of the electric windings are configured based on one or more movement requirements of the reflector ([0041] Accordingly, the racetrack shape of the coil member 44 causes current to flow in opposite directions in the first and second elongated portions 44a, 44b, resulting in a highly efficient design that causes the mirror 20 to pivot about the mirror axle A).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes (US 2023/0130390 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 2020/0386870 A1), as applied to Claims 1, 12, 21, and 28 above, in further view of Melville et al. (US 2021/0156967 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Hughes is not relied upon as teaching that the metal-based material of the substrate comprises non-magnetic metal material.
However, Melville teaches that the metal-based material of the substrate comprises non-magnetic metal material ([0139] substrate 1726 may be formed from a metal (e.g., aluminum, brass, etc.) having at least one surface being machined to include angled surface facets forming the paired reflectors).
Hughes, as previously modified by Wang, and Melville are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical scanning systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reflector substrate of Hughes to include a non-magnetic metal material of Melville with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to prevent unwanted magnetic interference with nearby electromagnetic drive components. By integrating Melville’s teaching of a non-magnetic metal substrate into Hughes (as previously modified)’s scanner assembly, the system can achieve accurate reflector actuation without magnetic coupling. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that combining Melville’s non-magnetic metal material with Hughes (as previously modified)’s scanner platform would yield the predictable result of a stable optical reflector assembly that operates uninhibited by magnetic fields.
Regarding Claim 4, Hughes is not relied upon as teaching that the non-magnetic metal material comprises metal material other than iron, nickel, or cobalt.
However, Melville teaches that the metal-based material of the substrate comprises the non-magnetic metal material comprises metal material other than iron, nickel, or cobalt ([0139] substrate 1726 may be formed from a metal (e.g., aluminum, brass, etc.) having at least one surface being machined to include angled surface facets forming the paired reflectors).
Hughes, as previously modified by Wang and Melville, and Melville are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical scanning systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the non-magnetic metal material of Hughes (as previously modified) to include a metal material other than iron, nickel, or cobalt of Melville with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to select lightweight non-ferromagnetic metals such as aluminum or brass to prevent stray magnetic attraction. By integrating Melville’s teaching of an aluminum or brass substrate into Hughes (as previously modified)’s scanner assembly, the system can avoid magnetic forces and ensure precise optical deflection. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that combining Melville’s specific non-ferromagnetic metal substrate with Hughes (as previously modified)’s scanner platform would yield the predictable result of a non-magnetic reflector support free from parasitic magnetic influence.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes (US 2023/0130390 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 2020/0386870 A1), as applied to Claims 1, 12, 21, and 28 above, in further view of Duport et al. (US 2023/0019436 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Hughes is not relied upon as teaching that the film substrate of the platform has a thickness of approximately 1 nanometer to 100 centimeters.
However, Duport teaches that the film substrate of the platform has a thickness of approximately 1 nanometer to 100 centimeters ([0061] This wafer comprises the substrate made of silicon, the layer of silicon oxide with a thickness of a few microns and the upper layer of silicon with a thickness of a few tens of microns, which will be used to produce the MEMS mechanical structure).
Hughes, as previously modified by Wang, and Duport are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of MEMS and optical scanning devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the platform substrate of Hughes (as previously modified) to include a substrate thickness of a few microns to a few tens of micros of Duport with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to provide optimal mechanical stiffness while minimizing structural mass for high-frequency actuation. By integrating Duport’s teaching of a substrate layer having a thickness of a few microns into Hughes (as previously modified)’s scanner platform assembly, the system can achiev3e stable structural support for the reflector during dynamic scanning. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that combining Duport’s substrate thickness parameters with the platform of Hughes and Wang would yield the predictable result of a durable, low-mass MEMS scanner platform having a substrate thickness squarely within the claimed range of 1 nanometer to 100 centimeters.
Claims 6-11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes (US 2023/0130390 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 2020/0386870 A1), as applied to Claims 1, 12, 21, and 28 above, in further view of Ouderkirk et al. (US 2022/0350147 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Hughes is not relied upon as teaching that the film substrate of the platform is made of polymer-based material.
However, Ouderkirk teaches that the film substrate of the platform is made of polymer-based material ([0044] a substrate may include at least one or a combinations of a polymer such as an elastomer or a composite film Examiner Note: As noted in the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection above, while a metal-based material of Claim 1 and a polymer-based material of Claim 6 are mutually exclusive compositions, evaluating the prior art combination demonstrates that substituting metal for polymer is a standard design choice in MEMS manufacturing).
Hughes, as previously modified by Wang, and Ouderkirk are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of MEMS and optical scanner assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the platform substrate of Hughes (as previously modified) to include a polymer-based material (e.g., elastomer or composite film) of Ouderkirk with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to reduce platform weight and improve structural flexibility during optical scanning. By integrating Ouderkirk’s teaching of a polymer-based film substrate into Hughes and Wang’s scanner assembly, the system can achieve lightweight support for the reflector. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that combining Ouderkirk’s polymer substrate material with the scanner platform of Hughes (as previously modified) would yield the predictable result of a flexible, low-mass MEMS scanner platform.
Regarding Claim 7, Hughes is not relied upon as teaching that the film substrate of the platform is a rigid substrate.
However, Ouderkirk teaches that the film substrate of the platform is a rigid substrate ([0044] the substrate may include a polymer such as, for example… polymethylmethacrylate, PMMA).
Hughes, as previously modified by Wang, and Ouderkirk are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of MEMS and optical scanner assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the metal film substrate of Hughes (as previously modified) to be a rigid substrate as taught by Ouderkirk with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to prevent structural warping and maintain precise optical reflection angles during high-frequency actuation. By integrating Ouderkirk’s teaching of a rigid substrate configuration into Hughes (as previously modified)’s metal-based platform assembly, the system can ensure structural stability during optical scanning. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that configuring the metal platform of Hughes and Wang as a rigid substrate would yield the predictable result of a stable, non-deforming scanner platform.
Regarding Claim 8, Hughes is not relied upon as teaching that the film substrate of the platform is a bendable substrate.
However, Ouderkirk teaches that the film substrate of the platform is a bendable substrate ([0044] In some examples, a substrate may include an elastic substrate, such as an elastic transparent substrate Examiner Note: As set forth in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) written description rejection above Applicant’s specification explicitly teaches at paragraph [0125] that mirror support requires a “rigid construction” to withstand mechanical stress, providing no written description or structural disclosure for a bendable metal substrate. However, for the purposes of evaluating obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103, modifying a platform substrate to bendable or elastic as disclosed by Ouderkirk represents a conventional material choice in MEMS design to introduce mechanical compliance).
Hughes, as previously modified by Wang, and Ouderkirk are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of MEMS and optical scanner assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the metal-based substrate of Hughes (as previously modified) to be a bendable or elastic substrate as taught by Ouderkirk with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to provide mechanical compliance, absorb mechanical shock during actuation, and allow controlled flexing during scanner operation. By integrating Ouderkirk’s teaching of an elastic or bendable substrate into Hughes (as previously modified)’s scanner assembly, the system can achieve flexible platform movement. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that substituting a bendable substrate as taught by Ouderkirk into the platform of Hughes (as previously modified) would yield the predictable result of a compliant optical scanner substrate.
Regarding Claim 9, Hughes is not relied upon as teaching that the reflector and the film substrate have substantially the same shape.
However, Ouderkirk teaches that “[0050] a substrate may have any shape.”
Hughes, as previously modified by Wang, and Ouderkirk are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of MEMS and optical scanner assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the film substrate and reflector of Hughes (as previously modified) to have substantially the same shape as taught by Ouderkirk with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to ensure uniform structural support across the entire reflecting surface, simplify manufacturing, and prevent mechanical imbalances during dynamic scanning. By integrating Ouderkirk’s teaching that a substrate may have any shape into Hughes (as previously modified)’s scanner assembly, the system can provide consistent geometric backing for the reflector. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that shaping the platform substrate to match the shape of the reflector would yield the predictable result of a balanced optical scanner platform with uniform dynamic response.
Regarding Claim 10, Hughes is not relied upon as teaching that the reflector and the film substrate have different shapes.
However, Ouderkirk teaches that “[0050] a substrate may have any shape.”
Hughes, as previously modified by Wang, and Ouderkirk are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of MEMS and optical scanner assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the film substrate and reflector of Hughes (as previously modified) to have different shapes as taught by Ouderkirk with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to provide extended mounting margins around the optical reflector, optimize mechanical strain distribution across the platform boundaries, and facilitate electrical trace or spring attachment. By integrating Ouderkirk’s teaching that a substrate may have any shape into Hughes (as previously modified)’s scanner assembly, the system can accommodate differing geometric requirements for the optical mirror and the supporting substrate. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that configuring the platform substrate and the reflector with different shapes would yield the predictable result of a versatile scanner platform with improved structural mounting flexibility.
Regarding Claim 11, Hughes is not relied upon as teaching that at least one of the reflector and the film substrate has a rectangular shape, a square shape, a round shape, a parallelogram shape, an oval shape, or a polygonal shape.
However, Ouderkirk teaches that at least one of the reflector and the film substrate has a rectangular shape, a square shape, a round shape, a parallelogram shape, an oval shape, or a polygonal shape ([0050] the electrodes may be formed on a substrate having a center (such as a circular substrate) the electrodes may be formed on a substrate having a center (such as a circular substrate)).
Hughes, as previously modified by Wang, and Ouderkirk are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of MEMS and optical scanner assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reflector and/or film substrate of Hughes (as previously modified) to have a circular (round) shape as taught by Ouderkirk with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to achieve symmetrical rotational inertia, optimize optical beam reflection efficiency without corner diffraction, and promote uniform stress distribution during oscillation. By integrating Ouderkirk’s teaching of a circular substrate configuration into Hughes (as previously modified)’s scanner assembly, the system can maintain dynamic balance during rapid scanning. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that configuring at least one of the reflector and film substrate in a circular shape would yield the predictable result of a rotationally balanced, highly efficient MEMS scanner platform.
Regarding Claim 13, Hughes is not relied upon as teaching that the electrical windings comprise looped coils disposed on the film substrate.
However, Ouderkirk teaches that the electrical windings comprise looped coils ([0050] electrodes may include… a second portion… forming a generally loop-type pattern) disposed on the film substrate ([0030] serpentine electrode on a substrate).
Hughes, as previously modified by Wang, and Ouderkirk are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of MEMS and optical scanner assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrical windings of Hughes (as previously modified) to comprise looped coils disposed on the film substrate as taught by Ouderkirk with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to maximize electromagnetic drive torque across the substrate platform while maintaining a low-profile, surface-integrated conductive layout. By integrating Ouderkirk’s teaching of looped/serpentine coils disposed directly on a substrate into Hughes (as previously modified)’s scanner platform, the system can achieve efficient, uniform electromagnetic actuation of the reflector assembly. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that disposing looped coils on the film substrate as disclosed by Ouderkirk would yield the predictable result of a compact, surface-actuated MEMS scanner platform.
Regarding Claim 15, Hughes is not relied upon as teaching that the one or more edges of the film substrate comprises a first edge, a second edge, a third edge, and a fourth edge.
However, Ouderkirk teaches that “[0050] a substrate may have any shape.”
Hughes, as previously modified by Wang, and Ouderkirk are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of MEMS and optical scanner assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the film substrate of Hughes (as previously modified) to have a polygonal shape comprising a first edge, a second edge, a third edge, and a fourth edge as taught by Ouderkirk with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to utilize standard rectangular or square geometry to simplify wafer dicing, optimize layout density during semiconductor fabrication, and provide straight boundaries for anchoring flexures. By integrating Ouderkirk’s teaching that a substrate may have any shape into Hughes (as previously modified)’s scanner assembly, the system can accommodate standard planar geometric substrate boundaries. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that configuring the film substrate to comprise four distinct edges would yield the predictable result of a four-sided MEMS scanner substrate optimized for conventional semiconductor dicing and fabrication.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes (US 2023/0130390 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 2020/0386870 A1) and Ouderkirk et al. (US 2022/0350147 A1), as applied to Claims 6-11, 13 and 15 above, in further view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0116702 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Hughes is not relied upon as teaching that the looped coils are electrically coupled to an electrical power supply via one or more arms attached to the platform.
However, Ouderkirk teaches that the looped coils are electrically coupled ([0028] The serpentine electrode may be in electrical communication with at least one electrical component) to an electrical power supply ([0049] Electrical communication may include power).
Hughes, as previously modified by Wang and Ouderkirk, and Ouderkirk are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical MEMS scanning and drive assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the looped coils of Hughes (as previously modified) to be electrically coupled to an electrical power supply as taught by Ouderkirk with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to provide operating current/power to the drive coils to induce electromagnetic actuation across the substrate. By integrating Ouderkirk’s teaching of electrical communication with a power supply into Hughes (as previously modified)’s scanner assembly, the system can energize the planar coils for controlled reflector movement. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that electrically connecting the drive coils to a power supply would yield the predictable result of an electromagnetic MEMS drive system.
Ouderkirk is not relied upon as teaching electrical coupling to an electrical power supply via one or more arms attached to the platform.
However, Lee teaches electrical coupling to an electrical power supply via one or more arms attached to the platform ([0033] current i.sub.0 to pass through torsion beams 204 and 306 and micro mirror 302).
Hughes, as previously modified by Wang and Ouderkirk, and Lee are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the same field of optical MEMS scanning devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrical coupling route of Hughes (as previously modified) to route electrical current via one or more arms (torsion beams) attached to the platform as taught by Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to deliver electrical power to the moving platform coils through the supporting suspension flexures without requiring flexible external wiring that would restrict platform movement or add parasitic mass. By integrating Lee’s teaching of routing drive current through platform support arms into Hughes (as previously modified)’s scanner assembly, the system can achieve compact, unimpeded power deliver to the moving mirror platform. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that routing electrical signals to the platform through support arms would yield the predictable result of a robust, self-contained MEMS scanner assembly with integrated power routing.
Claims 16 -18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes (US 2023/0130390 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 2020/0386870 A1) and Ouderkirk et al. (US 2022/0350147 A1), as applied to Claims 6-11, 13 and 15 above, in further view of Huang et al. (US 2013/0167632 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Hughes is not relied upon as teaching that one or more magnets of the plurality of magnets are disposed in proximity to at least one of the first edge and the third edge.
However, Huang teaches that one or more magnets of the plurality of magnets are disposed in proximity to at least one of the first edge and third edge ([[0010] and Fig. 3] in the MEMS micro-mirror 30, the Lorentz force is produced after that the electrical current flowing through a coil 32 on a twist plate interacts with a permanent magnet 38. The Lorentz is used to drive the twist plate to rotate and to drive a mirror 34 on the twist plate to rotate accordingly Examiner Note: As shown in Fig. 3, reproduced below, one or more magnets are disposed in proximity to at least one of the first edge and third edge).
PNG
media_image1.png
477
735
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hughes, as previously modified by Wang and Ouderkirk, and Huang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical MEMS scanning devices and magnetic drive assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the magnetic drive assembly of Hughes (as previously modified) to place one or more magnets in proximity to at least one of the first edge and the third edge of the platform as taught by Huang with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to generate symmetric Lorentz forces on opposing peripheral sides of the platform, thereby maximizing rotational torque and driving stable torsional rotation. By integrating Huang’s teaching of positioning drive magnets adjacent to opposing outer edges of the substrate into Hughes (as previously modified)’s scanner assembly, the system can achieve efficient, balanced electromagnetic actuation across the four-sided platform. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that placing magnets in proximity to opposing substrate edges as disclosed by Huang would yield the predictable result of a dynamically balanced and edge actuated optical scanner assembly.
Regarding Claim 17, Hughes is not relied upon as disclosing that a first magnet of the one or more magnets is disposed such that a north pole of the first magnet is closer to the first edge than a south pole of the first magnet; and a second magnet of the one or more magnets is disposed such that a south pole of the second magnet is closer to the third edge than a north pole of the second magnet (Examiner Note: The interpretation for this claim discussed above will be applied. Therefore, this claim is interpreted as “a second pole of the second magnet is closer to the third edge than a north pole of the second magnet).
However, Huang discloses that a first magnet of the one or more magnets is disposed such that a north pole of the first magnet is closer to the first edge than a south pole of the first magnet; and a second magnet of the one or more magnets is disposed such that a south pole of the second magnet is closer to the second edge than a north pole of the second magnet ([Fig. 3] Examiner Note: Fig. 3, reproduced above, shows the first and third edges of the platform as shown as the two edges without arms extending from them. The polarity of the first magnet is shown as the south side of the magnet facing the first edge of the platform and the north side facing away. The reverse is true for the second magnet. For this one, the south polarity of the magnet is facing the third edge of the platform and the north side is facing away).
Hughes, as previously modified by Wang, Ouderkirk, and Huang, and Huang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical MEMS scanning devices and magnetic drive assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified magnetic orientation of Hughes (as previously modified) to arrange the first magnet with its north pole closer to the first edge than its south pole, and the second magnet with its south pole closer to the third edge than its north pole as taught by Huang with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to establish opposite magnetic polarities across opposing edges of the platform, thereby inducing push-pull electromagnetic forces (Lorentz forces) in opposite directions to maximize rotational torque and drive stable torsional oscillation. By integrating Huang’s teaching of opposing magnetic pole alignments along peripheral edges of the substrate into Hughes (as previously modified)’s scanner assembly, the system can achieve balanced push-pull actuation across the platform. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that arranging opposing magnet polarities relative to opposing substrate edges would yield the predictable result of a highly responsive torsional MEMS drive assembly.
Regarding Claim 18, Hughes is not relied upon as teaching that one or more magnets of the plurality of magnets are disposed in proximity to each of the second edge and the fourth edge, wherein at least one of the second edge and the fourth edge is attached to an arm extending away from the film substrate.
However, Huang teaches that one or more magnets of the plurality of magnets are disposed in proximity to each of the second edge and the fourth edge, wherein at least one of the second edge and the fourth edge is attached to an arm extending away from the film substrate ([Fig. 3] Examiner Note: Fig. 3, reproduced above, shows a plurality of magnets disposed in proximity to each the second and fourth edge (the edges with the arms extending away from the MEMS micro-mirror)).
Hughes, as previously modified by Wang, Ouderkirk, and Huang, and Huang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical MEMS scanning devices and magnetic drive assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the magnetic drive assembly of Hughes (as previously modified) to dispose one or more magnets in proximity to each of the second edge and the fourth edge, wherein at least one of the second edge and the fourth edge is attached to an arm extending away from the film substrate as taught by Huang with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to provide multi-axis electromagnetic driving forces or supplemental actuation torque directly along the flexure-supported edges of the platform, enhancing overall dynamic stability and drive efficiency without interfering with arm suspension movement. By integrating Huang’s teaching of positioning drive magnets adjacent to substrate edges that interface with support arms into Hughes (as previously modified)’s scanner assembly, the system can achieve efficient magnetic flux coupling across the entire platform perimeter. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that placing magnets in proximity to the arm-attached edges of the substrate would yield the predictable result of a perimeter actuated optical scanner system.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes (US 2023/0130390 A1), in view of Wang et al. (US 2020/0386870 A1), Ouderkirk et al. (US 2022/0350147 A1), and Huang et al. (US 2013/0167632 A1), as applied to Claims 16-18 above, in even further view of Elangovan et al. (US 2017/0336273 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Hughes is not relied upon as teaching a first magnet of the one or more magnets is disposed such that a north pole of the first magnet is closer to the second edge than a south pole of the first magnet; and a second magnet of the one or more magnets is disposed such that a north pole of the second magnet is closer to a fourth edge than a south pole of the second magnet; and wherein the first magnet and the second magnet are aligned on one side of the axis.
However, Huang and Elangovan teach a first magnet of the one or more magnets is disposed such that a north pole of the first magnet is closer to the second edge than a south pole of the first magnet; and a second magnet of the one or more magnets is disposed such that a north pole of the second magnet is closer to a fourth edge than a south pole of the second magnet; and wherein the first magnet and the second magnet are aligned on one side of the axis ([Elangovan 0161] FIGS. 40A, B and C illustrate a corresponding four magnet/sensor version in which four magnetic field generators 12 are linked by elongate links 190 to form a frame-like single object… [Huang Fig. 3] Examiner Note: By breaking the single frame like object (magnet 38) shown in Huang Fig. 3, reproduced above, into a collection of 4 magnets linked by elongate links as described by Elangovan, the result would be 4 magnets in a line replacing each of the magnetic bars of Huang. This modification would provide a first magnet disposed such that the north pole of the first magnet is closer to the second edge (the first side with an arm) than a south pole of the first magnet, and a second magnet disposed such that a north pole of the second magnet is closer to a fourth edge (the second side with an arm) and the first and second magnet would be aligned on one side of the axis).
Hughes, as previously modified by Wang, Ouderkirk, and Huang, and Elangovan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the same field of optical MEMS scanning devices and magnetic actuator configurations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the magnetic drive assembly of Hughes (as previously modified) to replace the single magnetic bars with linked/segmented magnet arrays aligned on one side of the axis, such that a first magnet has its north pole closer to the second edge than its south pole, and a second magnet has its north pole closer to the fourth edge than its south pole, with both magnets aligned on one side of the axis as taught by Elangovan in view of Huang with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to segment rigid magnet structures into discrete linked elements to optimize magnetic flux concentration along specific edge portions while mitigating mechanical stress on the frame or substrate. By integrating Elangovan’s teaching of linked multi-magnet arrays into Hughes (as previously modified)’s scanner assembly, the system can achieve targeted magnetic flux alignment along distinct substrate edges. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that arranging segmented magnets aligned on one side of the rotational axis would yield the predictable result of a custom aligned magnetic drive assembly for optical scanning.
Regarding Claim 20, Hughes is not relied upon as teaching that a third magnet of the one or more magnets is disposed such that a south pole of the third magnet is closer to the second edge than a north pole of the third magnet; and a fourth magnet of the one or more magnets is disposed such that a south pole of the fourth magnet is closer to the fourth edge than a north pole of the fourth magnet; and wherein the third magnet and the fourth magnet are aligned on a second side of the axis.
However, Huang and Elangovan teach a third magnet of the one or more magnets is disposed such that a south pole of the third magnet is closer to the second edge than a north pole of the third magnet; and a fourth magnet of the one or more magnets is disposed such that a south pole of the fourth magnet is closer to the fourth edge than a north pole of the fourth magnet; and wherein the third magnet and the fourth magnet are aligned on a second side of the axis ([Elangovan 0161] FIGS. 40A, B and C illustrate a corresponding four magnet/sensor version in which four magnetic field generators 12 are linked by elongate links 190 to form a frame-like single object… [Huang Fig. 3] Examiner Note: By breaking the single frame like object (magnet 38) shown in Huang Fig. 3, reproduced above, into a collection of 4 magnets linked by elongate links as described by Elangovan, the result would be 4 magnets in a line replacing each of the magnetic bars of Huang. This modification would provide a third magnet disposed such that the south pole of the third magnet is closer to the second edge (the first side with an arm) than a north pole of the third magnet, and a fourth magnet disposed such that a south pole of the third magnet is closer to a fourth edge (the second side with an arm) and the third and fourth magnet would be aligned a side of the axis opposite the side with the north poles of the magnet closer to the edges).
Hughes, as previously modified by Wang, Ouderkirk, Huang, and Elangovan, and Elangovan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the same field of optical MEMS scanning devices and magnetic actuator configurations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified magnetic drive assembly of Hughes (as previously modified) to configure a third magnet with its south pole closer to the second edge than its north pole, and a fourth magnet with its south pole closer to the fourth edge than its north pole, aligned on a second side of the axis opposite the first and second magnets as taught by Elangovan in view of Huang with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to establish complementary, opposing magnetic polarities across opposite sides of the rotational axis to maximize push-pull drive torque and enhance torsional stability. By integrating Elangovan’s teaching of linked multi-magnet arrays aligned on opposing sides of an axis into Hughes (as previously modified)’s scanner assembly, the system can achieve balanced, dual-sided magnetic flux coupling across the substrate platform. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that arranging opposing magnet polarities on a second side of the axis would yield the predictable result of a push-pull electromagnetic drive for dynamic optical scanning with high stability.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes (US 2023/0130390 A1) and Wang et al. (US 2020/0386870 A1), as applied to Claims 1, 12, 21, and 28 above, in further view of Kerecsen (US 2020/0294401 A1).
Regarding Claim 22, Hughes is not relied upon as teaching a rigid sheet metal attached underneath the reflector and installed on top of the coil.
However, Kerecsen teaches a rigid sheet metal attached underneath the reflector and installed on top of the coil ([0548] a Lorentz-type actuator… a linear electric motor typically consists of a flat magnetic core (generally laminated) with transverse slots which are often straight cut with coils laid into the slots, while the secondary is frequently a sheet of aluminum… Some LIMs are double sided. with one primary either side of the secondary, and in this case, no iron backing is needed).
Hughes, as previously modified by Wang, and Kerecsen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the same field of optical MEMS scanning devices and electromagnetic actuator assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reflector assembly of Hughes (as previously modified) to incorporate a rigid sheet metal attached underneath the reflector and installed on top of the coil as taught by Kerecsen with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to provide structural support to the reflector while serving as a secondary conductive sheet for electromagnetic Lorentz actuation. By integrating Kerecsen’s teaching of a sheet metal secondary backing above a coil array into Hughes (as previously modified)’s scanner assembly, the system can achieve enhanced mechanical rigidity and efficient electromagnetic coupling. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that attaching sheet metal underneath the reflector and above the coil would yield the predictable result of a electromagnetically driven mirror structure with mechanical reinforcement.
Regarding Claim 23, Hughes is not relied upon as teaching that the rigid sheet metal is made of metal material other than iron, nickel, or cobalt.
However, Kerecsen teaches that the rigid sheet metal is made of metal material other than iron, nickel, or cobalt ([0548] a sheet of aluminum).
Hughes, as previously modified by Wang and Kerecsen, and Kerecsen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the same field of optical MEMS scanning devices and electromagnetic actuator assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified rigid sheet metal material of Hughes (as previously modified) to select a metal material other than iron, nickel, or cobalt (such as aluminum) as taught by Kerecsen with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to minimize moving mass and eliminate unwanted ferromagnetic hysteresis while maintaining high electrical conductivity for induction drive forces. By integrating Kerecsen’s teaching of a non-ferromagnetic aluminum sheet layer into Hughes (as previously modified)’s scanner assembly, the system can achieve lightweight, highly responsive electromagnetic drive characteristics. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using a non-ferrous conductive sheet metal like aluminum would yield the predictable result of a low mass actuator assembly that’s hysteresis free.
Claims 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes (US 2023/0130390 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 2020/0386870 A1), as applied to Claims 1, 12, 21, and 28 above, in further view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0116702 A1).
Regarding Claim 24, Hughes is not relied upon as teaching a first arm attached to and extending away from the platform, wherein the first arm is aligned with the axis of the platform, and wherein the platform is configured to rotate or oscillate about the axis using the first arm.
However, Lee teaches a first arm attached to and extending away from the platform, wherein the first arm is aligned with the axis of the platform, and wherein the platform is configured to rotate or oscillate about the axis using the first arm ([Figs. 3A & 3B] Examiner Note, Figs. 3A and 3B, reproduced below, show a first arm 304 extending away from the platform 302 wherein the platform is configured to rotate about the axis using the first arm as shown by the bidirectional curved arrow).
PNG
media_image2.png
640
739
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hughes, as previously modified by Wang, and Lee are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical MEMS scanning devices and torsional flexure support assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the support assembly of Hughes (as previously modified) to include a first arm attached to and extending away from the platform, aligned with the rotational axis so the platform rotates or oscillates about the axis using the arm as taught by Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to establish a defined rotational pivot axis that guides platform oscillation while providing structural suspension. Integrating Lee’s coaxial support arm design into Hughes (as previously modified)’s scanner platform enables controlled torsional rotation directly along the central axis. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that adding an axially aligned support yields the predictable result of a stable torsional hinge mechanism for mirror rotation.
Regarding Claim 25, Hughes is not relied upon as teaching a second arm attached to and extending away from the platform in an opposite direction of the first arm, wherein the second arm is aligned with the axis of the platform, and wherein the platform is configured to rotate or oscillate about the axis using the first arm and the second arm.
However, Lee teaches a second arm attached to and extending away from the platform in an opposite direction of the first arm, wherein the second arm is aligned with the axis of the platform, and wherein the platform is configured to rotate or oscillate about the axis using the first arm and the second arm ([Figs. 3A & 3B] Examiner Note, Figs. 3A and 3B, reproduced above, show a second arm 306 extending away from the platform 302 wherein the platform is configured to rotate about the axis using the first arm and the second arm as shown by the bidirectional curved arrows).
Hughes, as previously modified by Wang and Lee, and Lee are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical MEMS scanning devices and torsional flexure support assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the support assembly of Hughes (as previously modified) to include a second arm attached in an opposite direction of the first arm, aligned with the axis so the platform rotates or oscillates about the axis using both arms as taught by Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to provide dual sided mechanical suspension to balance rotational stress and prevent parasitic off-axis tilt. Integrating Lee’s opposing dual-arm support structure into Hughes (as previously modified)’s scanner platform enables symmetrical torsional flexure along the full central axis. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that adding an opposing second support arm yields the predictable result of a balanced dual-hinge suspension for mirror rotation.
Regarding Claim 26, Hughes is not relied upon as teaching that the first arm and the second arm both overlap with the axis.
However, Lee teaches that the first arm and the second arm both overlap with the axis ([Fig. 3A] Examiner Note, Fig. 3A, reproduced above, show the axis of rotation as the dashed line bisecting the arms 304 and 306).
Hughes, as previously modified by Wang and Lee, and Lee are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical MEMS scanning devices and torsional flexure support assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified support assembly of Hughes (as previously modified) to configure the first arm and the second arm so that both overlap with the axis of rotation as taught by Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to ensure coaxial alignment between the support arms and the center of rotation, preventing off-axis moments and reducing dynamic torsional strain. Integrating Lee’s coaxial overlap configuration into Hughes (as previously modified)’s scanner platform enables pure torsional rotation directly along the central axis. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that overlapping both support arms with the axis would yield the predictable result of a stable, dynamically aligned suspension mechanism.
Regarding Claim 27, Hughes is not relied upon as teaching that the first arm is attached to the platform at a substantially center position of a first edge of the platform and the second arm is attached to the platform at a substantially center position of a second edge of the platform.
However, Lee teaches that the first arm is attached to the platform at a substantially center position of a first edge of the platform and the second arm is attached to the platform at a substantially center position of a second edge of the platform ([Fig. 3B] Examiner Note, Fig. 3B, reproduced above, shows the first arm 304 connected to a substantially center portion of a first edge of the platform 302 and shows the second arm 306 connected to a substantially center portion of a second edge of the platform 302).
Hughes, as previously modified by Wang and Lee, and Lee are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of optical MEMS scanning devices and torsional flexure support assemblies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the attachment points of Hughes (as previously modified) so that the first arm is attached at a substantially center position of a first edge and the second arm is attached at a substantially center position of a second edge as taught by Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to achieve symmetrical mass distribution across the platform boundaries, minimizing mechanical wobble and optimizing rotational inertia during drive cycles. Integrating Lee’s centered attachment scheme into Hughes (as previously modified)’s scanner platform enables equally distributed mechanical load across opposing substrate edges. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that attaching support arms at the substantially center positions of opposing edges yields the predictable result of a dynamically balanced optical mirror assembly.
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 EVAN H HAUT whose telephone number is (571)272-7927. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-3pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 272-9358. 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.
/E.H.H./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
