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 .
Drawings
Figure 1A should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the metalens (claims 12-13, 15-17, 23-25) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
Identification of only metasurface arrays and not metalenses is found in the Specification (page 3, lines 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, 17-18, and 35-37 describing elements of Figs 1B,1C,1D,2, and 3 respectively), and no clear boundary is found in the figures to identify a metalens separately from a metasurface array. (In particular, claims are drawn to size related relationships between a metalens and a pixel {for example, claims 12-13, 15-17, 23-25}, without the feature having been identified in the drawings. Further, description of Sensor Assembly 4 of Fig. 2 {page 3, lines 14-28} includes the term “metasurface pixel”, which is not a claim term and is not clearly identified on Fig 2; it is unclear whether “metasurface pixel” has the same meaning as metalens.)
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-12, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Dowski, Jr.; Edward R. et al. (US 2010/0165134; hereinafter Dowski).
Regarding claim 11, Dowski discloses a sensor assembly, comprising:
a sensor pixel array (10002; Fig 331; ¶ [0795,0819]; arrayed in the manner shown in Fig 295, ¶ [0795]);
a metasurface array (10152; Fig 331; ¶ [0801]) on the sensor pixel array; and
an IR cut filter (10750; Fig 331; ¶ [0820]) on a side of the metasurface array opposite the sensor pixel array.
Regarding claim 12, Dowski discloses the assembly of claim 11, wherein the metasurface array comprises metalenses having a size and a pitch on the order of a corresponding size and pitch of the sensor pixel array (Throughout various example embodiments disclosed, a metalens is described to satisfy the limitation of claim 12. For example, ¶ [0795-797, {0801}] discloses a metalens comprises a collection of structures that are each smaller in at least one dimension than wavelengths of interest and depicts in Figs 295-297,{307,331} a metalens 10010 {10152,10154} of approximate size as the photosensitive region 10002 {10002} of a pixel.)
Regarding claim 29, Dowski discloses a mobile device (hand held device; ¶ [0389]) having an imaging sensor to image a user body portion (iris, for example; ¶ [0389]) placed proximate to the device, comprising the sensor assembly of claim 11 (as described under claim 11).
Claims 11, 14, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Han; Seunghoon et al. (US 2021/0014394; hereinafter Han).
Regarding claim 11, Han discloses a sensor assembly, comprising:
a sensor pixel array (1200; Fig 10; ¶ [0091]);
a metasurface array (meta-lens 140; Fig 10; ¶ [0090]) on the sensor pixel array; and
an IR cut filter (123; Fig 10; ¶ [0090]) on a side of the metasurface array opposite the sensor pixel array. (Although Fig 10, does not depict the IR cut filter on a side of the metasurface array opposite the sensor pixel array, Han discloses this as an alternate configuration applicable to all example embodiments of the disclosure: the meta-lens 140, the spacer layer 130, and the band pass filter 120 {123} may be sequentially formed on the substrate 110 in that order {¶ [0053]}; the same applies to the other embodiments below {¶ [0055]}).
Regarding claim 32, Han discloses the assembly of claim 11, further comprising an optical spacer (130; ¶ [0090]) on the sensor pixel array (1200; Fig 10) opposite the metasurface array (140; Fig 10) (As applied to claim 11, the spacer 130 is on the opposite side of metalenses 140 from 110, and as applied to claim 1 and shown in Fig 10, 110 is adjacent to 1200; ¶ [0092])).
Regarding claim 14, Han discloses a sensor assembly, comprising:
a sensor pixel array (1200; Fig 10; ¶ [0091]);
a transparent substrate (110; Fig 10; ¶ [0090,0092]) on the sensor pixel array;
a metasurface array (meta-lens 140; Fig 10; ¶ [0090]) on a side of the substrate opposite the sensor pixel array; and
a notch filter (IR cut-off filter 123, blocking infrared wavelengths; Fig 10; ¶ [0090]) on a side of the metasurface array opposite the substrate.
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 12-13, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han; Seunghoon et al. (US 2021/0014394; hereinafter Han) in view of Mouli; Chandra (US 2007/0014019; hereinafter Mouli).
Regarding claim 12, Han discloses the assembly of claim 11, but does not specifically disclose wherein the metasurface array (140; Fig 10) comprises metalenses having a size and a pitch on the order of a corresponding size and pitch of the sensor pixel array.
In the same field of endeavor, Mouli discloses a microlens array (50; Fig 1; ¶ [0003-4]) comprising microlenses (30; Fig 1; ¶ [0024-25]) having a size and a pitch on the order of a corresponding size and pitch of the sensor pixel array (the array of pixels 25; Fig 1; ¶ [0004]). Accordingly it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the metalenses of Han in the manner of Fig 1 of Mouli. One would have been motivated to do this because it is a conventional method known in the art (Mouli; ¶ [0004]). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because (1) the metalens is essentially a substitution for a microlens (at least, a function substitution), serving a similar purpose in the similar endeavor, (2) Han has not disclosed a relationship between a size and pitch of metalenses comprising 140 and that of the sensor pixel array 1200, and (3) Han has disclosed the metasurface array (Han; 140; Figs 1-4,10; ¶ [0057-67,0090-91]) as being highly configurable to accommodate a variety of functions.
Regarding claim 13, Han discloses the assembly of claim 11, but does not specifically disclose the metasurface array comprises metalenses each covering a plurality of pixels in the sensor pixel array.
In the same field of endeavor, Mouli discloses a microlens array (110; Figs 2-3; ¶ [0024]) comprising microlenses (102; Figs 2-3; ¶ [0024-25]) each covering a plurality of pixels (130; Figs 2-3; ¶ [0025]) in a sensor pixel array. Accordingly it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the metalenses of Han in the manner of the microlens of Mouli. One would have been motivated to do this in order to increase the light collecting area (Mouli; ¶ [0005,0027]) directed towards a sensor pixel and/or for use with a Bayer pattern as disclosed by Mouli (Fig 1; ¶ [0004,0025-26]). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the metalens is essentially a substitution for a microlens (at least, a function substitution), serving a similar purpose in the similar endeavor, and Han has disclosed the metalens (Han; 140; Figs 1-4,10; ¶ [0057-67,0090-91]) as being highly configurable to accommodate a variety of functions.
Regarding claim 15, Han discloses the assembly of claim 14, but does not specifically disclose wherein the metasurface array (140; Fig 10) comprises metalenses having a size and a pitch on the order of a corresponding size and pitch of the sensor pixel array.
In the same field of endeavor, Mouli discloses a microlens array (50; Fig 1; ¶ [0003-4]) comprising microlenses (30; Fig 1; ¶ [0024-25]) having a size and a pitch on the order of a corresponding size and pitch of the sensor pixel array (the array of pixels 25; Fig 1; ¶ [0004]). Accordingly it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the metalenses of Han in the manner of Fig 1 of Mouli. One would have been motivated to do this because it is a conventional method known in the art (Mouli; ¶ [0004]). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because (1) the metalens is essentially a substitution for a microlens (at least, a function substitution), serving a similar purpose in the similar endeavor, (2) Han has not disclosed a relationship between a size and pitch of metalenses comprising 140 and that of the sensor pixel array 1200, and (3) Han has disclosed the metasurface array (Han; 140; Figs 1-4,10; ¶ [0057-67,0090-91]) as being highly configurable to accommodate a variety of functions.
Regarding claim 16, Han discloses the assembly of claim 14, but does not specifically disclose the metasurface array comprises metalenses each covering a plurality of pixels in the sensor pixel array.
In the same field of endeavor, Mouli discloses a microlens array (110; Figs 2-3; ¶ [0024]) comprising microlenses (102; Figs 2-3; ¶ [0024-25]) each covering a plurality of pixels (130; Figs 2-3; ¶ [0025]) in a sensor pixel array. Accordingly it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the metalenses of Han in the manner of the microlens of Mouli. One would have been motivated to do this in order to increase the light collecting area (Mouli; ¶ [0005,0027]) directed towards a sensor pixel and/or for use with a Bayer pattern as disclosed by Mouli (Fig 1; ¶ [0004,0025-26]). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the metalens is essentially a substitution for a microlens (at least, a function substitution), serving a similar purpose in the similar endeavor, and Han has disclosed the metalens (Han; 140; Figs 1-4,10; ¶ [0057-67,0090-91]) as being highly configurable to accommodate a variety of functions.
Regarding claim 18, Han discloses the assembly of claim 14, but does not disclose the wherein the metasurface array is tuned to at least two wavelengths and at least two focal lengths.
In the same field of endeavor, Mouli discloses a microlens array (110; Figs 2-3; ¶ [0024]), wherein the microlens array is tuned to at least two wavelengths (since color {wavelength} filter array 124 {Fig 2; R,G,B: Fig 3; ¶ [0025]} is in the light path after having passed through the microlens array, the microlens array must be tuned to at least two wavelengths) and at least two focal lengths (for the case where different focal lengths are desired {for each microlens 102, in the microlens array}; ¶ [0033]).
Accordingly it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the metalenses of Han in the manner of the microlens of Mouli. One would have been motivated to do in order to enable more optimal operation of the device over at least two wavelengths and two distances (focal lengths). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the metalens is essentially a substitution for a microlens (at least, a function substitution), serving a similar purpose in the similar endeavor, and Han has disclosed the metalens (Han; 140; Figs 1-4,10; ¶ [0057-67,0090-91]) as being highly configurable to accommodate a variety of functions.
Claims 17 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han; Seunghoon et al. (US 2021/0014394; hereinafter Han).
Regarding claim 31, Han discloses the assembly of claim 11, but does not disclose further comprising a transparent substrate on the sensor pixel array (1200; Fig 10) opposite the metasurface array (140; Fig 10).
However, Han discloses that the sensor pixel array 1200 may comprise semiconductor devices, such as CMOS devices (¶ [0091]), which are commonly produced on a silicon substrate, which is well-known in the art. It is also well-known in the art that silicon is transparent in the infrared range. Therefore the further limitation of claim 12 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, the silicon substrate being on a side of the sensor pixel array opposite from the metasurface array. One would have been motivated to come to this conclusion, with a reasonable expectation of success because Han has not disclosed a detailed structure for the sensor pixel array 1200, and silicon CMOS sensor pixel arrays, transparent to infrared wavelengths, are well-known and common in the art.
Regarding claim 17, Han discloses the assembly of claim 14, but does not disclose in the same embodiment wherein the metasurface array (140; Fig 10) comprises a plurality of metalenses covering an individual pixel in the sensor pixel array. However, Han discloses this in another example embodiment (Fig 5; ¶ [0068-69]), wherein NS1 may be regarded as one metasurface array, comprising one or more metalenses and NS2 may be regarded as another metasurface array, comprising one or more metalenses. In addition, in still another embodiment (Fig 7; ¶ [0074-78]), Han discloses a meta-optical device 102 comprising a metasurface array 140, comprising one or more metalenses, and a second metasurface array 122, comprising one or more metalenses, where 140 and 122 may each provide a separate optical function. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine elements of, for example Fig 5 or Fig 7, with the assembly of clam 14 to satisfy the limitation of claim 17. One would have been motivated to do this to achieve specific performance requirements of a particular assembly, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success since Han discloses these as alternate embodiments with the implication of their applicability in various combinations with one another throughout the disclosure.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han; Seunghoon et al. (US 2021/0014394; hereinafter Han) in view of Wheatly John A et al. (US 2019/0137669 A1; hereinafter Wheatly).
Regarding claim 20, Han discloses the assembly of claim 14, but does not disclose wherein the notch filter is polarization selective.
In the same field of endeavor Wheatley discloses a polarization selective notch filter (1000c-1; Fig 10C; ¶ [0054,00079]) included in a sensor of an optical system. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have configured the assembly of claim 14 with such a notch filter. One may have been motivated to do this to provide a detection function such as disclosed by Wheatley (¶ [0078-79], for example, or related application) in the more compact integrated form enabled in claim 14. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because this type of filter is known in the art, and Han has not disclosed an limitation on the notch filter of claim 14 that would render incompatible the filter of Wheatley (¶ [0079; 0087-93]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han; Seunghoon et al. (US 2021/0014394; hereinafter Han) in view of Paiella; Roberto et al. (US 2020/0321378; hereinafter Paiella).
Regarding claim 21, Han discloses the assembly of claim 14, but does not disclose wherein the metasurface array is polarization selective.
In the same field of endeavor Paiella discloses a metasurface array (NP array; Figs 5A,6,8B; ¶ [0089-90]) in a sensor assembly (such as shown in Fig 2B), wherein the metasurface array is polarization selective. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have configured the assembly of claim 14 with such a metasurface array. One may have been motivated to do this to take advantage of the reduced glare and improved contrast the metasurface array of Paiella offers (Paiella; ¶ [0052]) in combination with the assembly of claim 14 of Han. One would have had a reasonable expectation because of the similar structures of the metasurface arrays of Han (140; Figs 3,10) and Paiella (NP array; Fig 5A), and because Han has disclosed the metasurface array as being highly configurable to accommodate a variety of functions.
Claims 22 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devlin; Robert C. et al. (US 2021/0028215; hereinafter Devlin).
Regarding claim 22, Devlin discloses a sensor assembly (Figs 5-7; ¶ [0099-103], entire document), comprising:
a sensor pixel array (16e; Fig 7; ¶ [0103,0092])
an adhesive on the sensor pixel array (between the transparent substrate 24e and metasurface array 14e; refer to Figs 5-7 and description below; metasurface layers 14 may be bonded via adhesive to substrate 24; ¶ [0100]);
a pinhole array (aperture structure 12e; Fig 7; ¶ [0086-87]) on a side of the adhesive opposite the sensor pixel array;
a transparent substrate (24e, where 14e is disposed on the surface 34” {as 14d is in Fig 6}; Fig 7; ¶ [0103, 0088]) on a side of the pinhole array opposite the optically clear adhesive; and
a metasurface array (14e, disposed on the surface 34” {as 14d is Fig 6}; Fig 7; ¶ [0103,0092]) on a side of the substrate opposite the pinhole array.
Devlin does not specifically disclose that the adhesive is optically clear, but this would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art because one would not want the adhesive to affect the operation of the optics.
Regarding claim 28, Devlin discloses the assembly of claim 22, further comprising a spatial or angular filtering function (controlling chief ray angle and distortion; ¶ [0085]; shift the incoming light; claim 1).
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devlin; Robert C. et al. (US 2021/0028215; hereinafter Devlin) in view of Mouli; Chandra (US 2007/0014019; hereinafter Mouli).
Regarding claim 23, Devlin discloses the assembly of claim 22, but does not specifically disclose wherein the metasurface array (14e; Fig 7) comprises metalenses having a size and a pitch on the order of a corresponding size and pitch of the sensor pixel array.
In the same field of endeavor, Mouli discloses a microlens array (50; Fig 1; ¶ [0003-4]) comprising microlenses (30; Fig 1; ¶ [0024-25]) having a size and a pitch on the order of a corresponding size and pitch of the sensor pixel array (the array of pixels 25; Fig 1; ¶ [0004]). Accordingly it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the metalenses of Devlin in the manner of Fig 1 of Mouli. One would have been motivated to do this because it is a conventional method known in the art (Mouli; ¶ [0004]). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because (1) the metalens is essentially a substitution for a microlens (at least, a function substitution) (Devlin; microlens may be removed; ¶ [0104]), serving a similar purpose in the similar endeavor, (2) Devlin has not disclosed the specific relationship between a size and pitch of metalenses comprising 14e and that of the sensor pixel array 16e, but has disclosed the shape of a metasurface lens element may be engineered to accommodate design requirements (Devlin; ¶ [0120-122]).
Regarding claim 24, Devlin discloses the assembly of claim 22, but does not specifically disclose the metasurface array (14e; Fig 7) comprises metalenses each covering a plurality of pixels in the sensor pixel array.
In the same field of endeavor, Mouli discloses a microlens array (110; Figs 2-3; ¶ [0024]) comprising microlenses (102; Figs 2-3; ¶ [0024-25]) each covering a plurality of pixels (130; Figs 2-3; ¶ [0025]) in a sensor pixel array. Accordingly it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the metalenses of Devlin in the manner of the microlens of Mouli. One would have been motivated to do this in order to increase the light collecting area (Mouli; ¶ [0005,0027]) directed towards a sensor pixel and/or for use with a Bayer pattern as disclosed by Mouli (Fig 1; ¶ [0004,0025-26]). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the metalens is essentially a substitution for a microlens (at least, a function substitution) (Devlin; microlens may be removed; ¶ [0104]), serving a similar purpose in the similar endeavor, and Devlin has disclosed the metasurface array throughout the disclosure as being highly configurable (Devlin; for example ¶ [0120-122]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devlin; Robert C. et al. (US 2021/0028215; hereinafter Devlin) in view Han; Seunghoon et al. (US 2021/0014394; hereinafter Han).
Regarding claim 25, Devlin discloses the assembly of claim 22, but does not wherein the metasurface array (14e; Fig 7) comprises a plurality of metalenses covering an individual pixel in the sensor pixel array.
In the same field of endeavor, Han discloses a sensor assembly (Fig 5; ¶ [0068-69]), wherein NS1 may be regarded as one metasurface array, comprising one or more metalenses and NS2 may be regarded as another metasurface array, comprising one or more metalenses. In addition, in still another embodiment (Fig 7; ¶ [0074-78]), Han discloses a meta-optical device 102 comprising a metasurface array 140, comprising one or more metalenses, and a second metasurface array 122, comprising one or more metalenses, where 140 and 122 may each provide a separate optical function. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine elements of, for example Fig 5 or Fig 7, with the assembly of clam 22 to satisfy the limitation of claim 25. One would have been motivated to do this to achieve specific performance requirements of a particular assembly, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success because of the similar structures of the metasurfaces disclosed by Devlin and Han.
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devlin; Robert C. et al. (US 2021/0028215; hereinafter Devlin) in view Rotem; Efi et al. (US 2019/0331526; hereinafter Rotem).
Regarding claim 26, Devlin discloses the assembly of claim 22, wherein the pinhole array (12e; Fig 7) comprises an opaque structure portion (¶ [0087]), but does not disclose the opaque structure portion comprises an optically absorbing material.
In the same field of endeavor, Rotem discloses a pinhole array (pinholes 9 and light absorbing layer 4; Figs 1-2; ¶ [0044]) comprising an optically absorbing material (such as black matte paint; ¶ [0047]). Accordingly it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use an optically absorbing material in the pinhole array of Devlin. One would have been motivated to do this, with a reasonable expectation of success because it is well-known in the art, and one of few methods of producing the opacity.
Regarding claim 27, Devlin discloses the assembly of claim 22, but does further comprising a dye or a pigment on the substrate or on the optically clear adhesive.
However, Devlin discloses that the pinhole array (12e; Fig 7) comprises an opaque structure portion (¶ [0087]), but does not disclose what makes the structure portion opaque. In the same field of endeavor, Rotem discloses a pinhole array (pinholes 9 and light absorbing layer 4; Figs 1-2; ¶ [0044]) comprising a black matte paint (¶ [0047]). Accordingly it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use an optically absorbing material such as the black matte paint of Rotem in the pinhole array of Devlin. One would have been motivated to do this, with a reasonable expectation of success because it is well-known in the art, and one of few methods of producing the opacity.
Since the black matte paint is then on the pinhole array of Devlin, and the pinhole array is on the substrate (Devlin; 24e; Fig 7, as applied to claim 22), then the die or pigment (black matte paint) is on the substrate and the limitation of claim 27 is met.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Miyata; Masashi et al. (US 2024/0014237);
Wheatley; John A et al. (US 2021/0168269 {WO 2020/026115}).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAD KNUDSON whose telephone number is (703)756-4582. The examiner can normally be reached Telework 9:30 -18:30 ET; M-F.
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, Eliseo Ramos Feliciano can be reached at 571-272-7925. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817