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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in CN on 12/30/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 202211730429.7 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/11/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 09/02/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-16, 18-22 are currently pending. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the drawing objections and 35 USC 112 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 06/02/2025.
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 1, 5-7, 14, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shen et al, NPL “High-Power V-Band-to-G-Band Photonically Driven Electromagnetic Emitters” (hereinafter Shen).
Regarding claim 1, Shen discloses the following:
an integrated antenna, comprising:
an antenna substrate (InP substrate, fig. 4a);
a photodiode, disposed on the antenna substrate (fig. 4a) and comprising two electrodes (page 1475-1476, section A: p-electrode and n-electrode); and,
two antenna radiating bodies (fig. 3c, 4a), disposed on the antenna substrate (fig. 4a), wherein the two antenna radiating bodies are connected with the two electrodes respectively (fig. 3, page 1477, section C), and located on an upper surface of the photodiode (fig. 4a);
wherein the two antenna radiating bodies further comprise an antenna electrode and a choke structure (fig. 18 below), both of which are disposed on the antenna substrate (fig. 7a);
the antenna electrode is connected directly with an end of one of the antenna radiating bodies and the choke structure is connected directly with an end of other of the antenna radiating bodies (fig. 18).
PNG
media_image1.png
413
846
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Shen discloses wherein, the photodiode is located in a central region of the impedance matching structure; and/or, the photodiode is embedded in the antenna substrate (page 1477, Integration section, para 3).
Regarding claim 6, Shen discloses wherein, the two antenna radiating bodies comprises a dipole antenna (fig. 3c) or a frequency-independent antenna; and/or,
the antenna radiating bodies are a planar structure formed by a single layer of metal; and/or,
Regarding claim 7, Shen discloses the following:
an antenna apparatus, comprising:
a dielectric substrate (PCB, fig. 4b, page 1477, right col, para 2); and,
an integrated antenna, comprising:
an antenna substrate (InP substrate, fig. 4a);
a photodiode, disposed on the antenna substrate (fig. 4a) and comprising two electrodes (page 1475-1476, section A: p-electrode and n-electrode); and,
two antenna radiating bodies (fig. 3c, 4a), disposed on the antenna substrate (fig. 4a), wherein the two antenna radiating bodies are connected with the two electrodes respectively (fig. 3, page 1477, section C), and located on an upper surface of the photodiode (fig. 4a);
wherein the two antenna radiating bodies further comprise an antenna electrode and a choke structure (fig. 18 above), both of which are disposed on the antenna substrate (fig. 7a);
the antenna electrode is connected directly with an end of one of the antenna radiating bodies and the choke structure is connected directly with an end of other of the antenna radiating bodies (fig. 18).
Regarding claim 14, Shen discloses wherein the antenna apparatus further comprises a lens (fig. 4a), wherein the lens is located directly over the integrated antenna and is a distance from the integrated antenna along a height direction (fig. 4a).
Regarding claim 20, Shen discloses wherein, the photodiode is located in a central region of the impedance matching structure; and/or, the photodiode is embedded in the antenna substrate (page 1477, Integration section, para 3).
Regarding claim 22, Shen discloses the following:
an integrated antenna, comprising:
an antenna substrate (InP substrate, fig. 4a);
a photodiode, disposed on the antenna substrate (fig. 4a) and comprising two electrodes (page 1475-1476, section A: p-electrode and n-electrode); and,
an antenna radiating body (fig. 4a), disposed on the antenna substrate (fig. 4a), wherein the two antenna radiating bodies are connected with the two electrodes respectively (fig. 3, page 1477, section C), and located on an upper surface of the photodiode (fig. 4a);
wherein the photodiode is embedded in the antenna substrate (page 1477, Integration section, para 3) and the antenna substrate (fig. 4a, page 1477, section Integration, para 2: antenna substrate is InP) is of same material as a substrate of the photodiode (fig. 2, page 1475, section CC-MUTC PDs, para 2: the substrate of the photodiode is InP).
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 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and in view of Chang, NPL “RF and Microwave Wireless Systems”.
Regarding claim 3, Shen does not disclose wherein the antenna electrode and/or the choke structure comprise a squarewave-like folded line structure having a plurality of turns of rectangular metal strips, however, Shen discloses that the choke structure is an inductor (fig. 18).
Chang discloses the inductor can have squarewave-like folded line structure having a plurality of turns of rectangular metal strips (fig. 2.28c).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to design the choke structure of the integrated antenna taught in Shen to have squarewave-like folded line structure as suggested in Chang as claimed, since applicant has not disclosed that having squarewave-like folded line structure solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any shape. The motivation stems from the needs to fit the integrated antenna in a limited space and changing the shape, the size of the choke structure in order to achieve desired radiating characteristics depending on the requirements of the application.
Regarding claim 18, Shen does not disclose wherein the antenna electrode and/or the choke structure comprise a squarewave-like folded line structure having a plurality of turns of rectangular metal strips, however, Shen discloses that the choke structure is an inductor (fig. 18).
Chang discloses the inductor can have squarewave-like folded line structure having a plurality of turns of rectangular metal strips (fig. 2.28c).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to design the choke structure of the integrated antenna taught in Shen to have squarewave-like folded line structure as suggested in Chang as claimed, since applicant has not disclosed that having squarewave-like folded line structure solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any shape. The motivation stems from the needs to fit the integrated antenna in a limited space and changing the shape, the size of the choke structure in order to achieve desired radiating characteristics depending on the requirements of the application.
Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen as applied to claims 1 and 7 above in view of Gunzelmann et al, US-20230058998-A1 (hereinafter Gunzelmann).
Regarding claim 4, Shen does not disclose the two antenna radiating bodies are connected with the two electrodes via an impedance matching structure connected with the two antenna radiating bodies, however, Shen discloses there is an impedance matching structure (page 1484, right column, para 2).
Gunzelmann discloses the two antenna radiating bodies (36, para [0081], fig. 10) are connected with the two electrodes (two sides of 108, fig. 10, para [0081], [0084]) via an impedance matching structure (106) connected with the two antenna radiating bodies (36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the impedance matching structure taught in Gunzelmann to the integrated antenna taught in Shen as claim for the purpose of matching the impedance between the input and the radiating body in order to reduce the signal loss in transmission and improve the antenna performance.
Regarding claim 19, Shen does not disclose the two antenna radiating bodies are connected with the two electrodes via an impedance matching structure connected with the two antenna radiating bodies, however, Shen discloses there is an impedance matching structure (page 1484, right column, para 2).
Gunzelmann discloses the two antenna radiating bodies (36, para [0081], fig. 10) are connected with the two electrodes (two sides of 108, fig. 10, para [0081], [0084]) via an impedance matching structure (106) connected with the two antenna radiating bodies (36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the impedance matching structure taught in Gunzelmann to the integrated antenna taught in Shen as claim for the purpose of matching the impedance between the input and the radiating body in order to reduce the signal loss in transmission and improve the antenna performance.
Claims 8-10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen as applied to claim 7 above, and in view of Bulja et al, US-20200161759-A1 (hereinafter Bulja).
Regarding claim 8, Shen does not disclose wherein the antenna apparatus further comprises a reflecting plate, disposed on an upper surface of the dielectric substrate; wherein the integrated antenna is located directly over the reflecting plate.
Bulja discloses wherein the antenna apparatus further comprises a reflecting plate (210, fig. 3D), disposed on an upper surface of the dielectric substrate (202, 204, 208); wherein the integrated antenna (216) is located directly over the reflecting plate (210).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a reflecting plate as suggested in Bulja to the antenna apparatus taught in Shen as claimed for the purpose of reflecting the electromagnetic signals towards the antenna in order to improve the antenna performance.
Regarding claim 9, Shen does not disclose wherein the antenna apparatus further comprises a support plate disposed on an upper surface of the reflecting plate and located under the integrated antenna; wherein the support plate supports the integrated antenna such that the integrated antenna is a distance from the reflecting plate along a height direction.
Bulja suggests wherein the antenna apparatus further comprises a support plate (214, fig. 3D) disposed on an upper surface of the reflecting plate (210) and located under the integrated antenna (216); wherein the support plate supports the integrated antenna such that the integrated antenna is a distance from the reflecting plate along a height direction (fig. 3D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a support plate as suggested in Bulja to the antenna apparatus taught in Shen as claimed for the purpose of separating the antenna and the reflecting plate and providing support to the antenna while still maintaining a distance between the antenna and the reflecting plate in order to avoid the interference between the reflecting plate and the antenna and achieve desired radiating characteristics.
Regarding claim 10, Shen does not disclose wherein,
the support plate comprises a polymethacrylimide foam plate; and/or,
the reflecting plate is a metal plate; and/or,
the support plate further comprises a first optical fiber through hole penetrating from top to down, the reflecting plate further comprises a second optical fiber through hole which penetrates from top to bottom and is in communication with the first optical fiber through hole, the dielectric substrate further comprises a third optical fiber through hole which penetrates from top to bottom and is in communication with the first optical fiber through hole and the second optical fiber through hole, and positions of the first optical fiber through hole, the second optical fiber through hole and the third optical fiber through hole are disposed correspondingly and are all located directly below the photodiode of the integrated antenna.
Bulja discloses the reflecting plate is a metal plate (para [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a metal plate as suggested in Bulja to the antenna apparatus taught in Shen as claimed for the purpose of reflecting the electromagnetic signals towards the antenna in order to improve the antenna performance.
Regarding claim 21, Shen does not disclose wherein a thickness of the support plate is a quarter of a wavelength corresponding to a central frequency of the integrated antenna.
Bulja suggests wherein a thickness of the support plate is greater than 1/40 of a wavelength corresponding to a central frequency of the integrated antenna (para [0043]: the thickness of dielectric layer H.sub.diel 214 is determined as being greater than λ.sub.g/40 where λ.sub.g is the guided wavelength associated with f.sub.0 which is the operating frequency of the antenna).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the thickness of the support plate taught in Shen and Bulja to be a quarter of a wavelength since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The motivation stems from the need to need to reduce the thickness of the antenna apparatus while still maintaining the antenna’s performance.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen as applied to claim 7 above, and in view of Annamaa et al, WO-2006097567-A1 (hereinafter Annamaa).
Regarding claim 11, Shen does not disclose wherein,
the dielectric substrate comprises a substrate body, a connection layer disposed on an upper surface of the substrate body, and a grounding layer disposed on a lower surface of the substrate body;
the integrated antenna is disposed on the connection layer.
Annamaa discloses wherein,
the dielectric substrate comprises a substrate body (212, fig. 2), a connection layer disposed on an upper surface of the substrate body (fig. 2), and a grounding layer (GND, fig. 2) disposed on a lower surface of the substrate body;
the integrated antenna is disposed on the connection layer (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the dielectric substrate as suggested in Annamaa to the antenna apparatus taught in Shen as claimed for the purpose of separating the grounding layer and the connection layer in order to avoid the interference to the integrated antenna.
Regarding claim 12, Shen does not disclose wherein,
the connection layer comprises at least one first pad; the antenna apparatus further comprises a gold bonding wire , and
the integrated antenna is connected with the first pad via the gold bonding wire.
Annamaa discloses wherein,
the connection layer comprises at least one first pad (242, fig. 2); the antenna apparatus further comprises a gold bonding wire (page 5, lines 27-29: bonding wire 241 are made of gold), and
the integrated antenna is connected with the first pad via the gold bonding wire (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the gold bonding wire as taught in Annamaa to the antenna apparatus taught in Shen as claimed for the purpose of connecting the integrated antenna to different components of the circuit so that the integrated antenna could operate and provide wireless communication.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen and Annamaa as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Miller et al, CN-113014204-A (hereinafter Miller).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Shen and Annamaa does not disclose wherein, the connection layer comprises at least one second pad which is connected with the first pad and used to connect with a direct current connector; a communication hole penetrating the substrate body from top to bottom is disposed in the substrate body, and a ground wire of the direct current connector is connected with the grounding layer through the communication hole.
However, Shen discloses that the antenna would be supplied with a direct current voltage (fig. 12, page 1481, right col, para 2), it is implied that the antenna apparatus is connected with a direct current connector.
Miller discloses the connection layer comprises at least one second pad which is connected with the first pad and used to connect with a direct current connector (320, 380, 390, fig. 3).
Although Miller does not explicitly disclose a communication hole penetrating the substrate body from top to bottom is disposed in the substrate body, and a ground wire of the direct current connector is connected with the grounding layer through the communication hole, Miller discloses there is a ground contact (320, fig. 3) from the direct current connector which is implied that it is connected to the grounding layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that there is via/through-hole on the PCB which comprises the substrate body (taught in Annamaa) for lead contacts of the direct current connector/terminal to go through.
NPL “How to Solder: Through-Hole Soldering” applied as a teaching reference shows a communication hole penetrating from top to bottom is disposed in the substrate body, and a ground wire of the direct current connector is connected with the grounding layer through the communication hole (figure on page 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second pad connected to a direct current connector as disclosed in Miller to the antenna apparatus taught by Shen and Annamaa as claimed for the purpose of providing a DC voltage to the antenna so that the integrated antenna could operate and provide wireless communication.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Tang et al, CN-113381172-A (hereinafter Tang).
Regarding claim 15, Shen does not disclose wherein, the lens is formed by 3D printing technology; and/or,
the distance of the lens from the integrated antenna is related to a radius of the lens and a refractive index of the lens.
Tang discloses wherein, the lens is formed by 3D printing technology (page 6, last para).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use 3D printing technology as suggested in Tang to the antenna apparatus taught in Shen as claimed for the purpose of simplifying the manufacturing process and reducing the cost (Tang, page 6, last para).
Regarding claim 16, Shen does not disclose wherein the antenna apparatus further comprises a fixing assembly, wherein the fixing assembly comprises a plurality of fixing pieces and a bearing piece disposed above the plurality of fixing pieces; the plurality of fixing pieces are fixed on an upper surface of the dielectric substrate to support the bearing piece; the lens is disposed on the bearing piece.
Tang discloses wherein the antenna apparatus further comprises a fixing assembly, wherein the fixing assembly comprises a plurality of fixing pieces (fig. 2) and a bearing piece (3) disposed above the plurality of fixing pieces; the plurality of fixing pieces are fixed on an upper surface of the dielectric substrate to support the bearing piece (fig. 2); the lens is disposed on the bearing piece (figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the fixing pieces and bearing piece as suggested in Tang to the antenna apparatus taught in Shen as claimed for the purpose of keeping the distance between the lens and the antenna depending on the requirement of the application (Tang, page 7, para 4).
Citation of Pertinent Art
Yoshimatsu et al, JP-2013131821-A, figs. 1, 6, 7 – choke and antenna electrode connected directly with the ends of the two radiating bodies
Li et al, CN-114865318-A – photodiode is embedded in the antenna substrate and the antenna substrate is of same material as a substrate of the photodiode
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argued that “As acknowledged on page 5 of the Action, Cheng does not disclose "the antenna radiating body further comprises an antenna electrode and a choke structure, both of which are disposed on the antenna substrate; the antenna electrode and the choke structure are respectively connected with an end of the antenna radiating body." and the examiner further relies upon Shi.
Shi discloses in paragraph [0096-0097] that :
Each anode bias line 122a electrically connects radiating arms 110a of a group of antennas 110 aligned in the x direction of signal feed module 117 and each cathode bias line 122b electrically connects radiating arms 110b of a group of antennas 110 aligned in the x direction.
Additionally or alternatively, a first inductor may be connected between the anode bias line 122a and the anode of the photodiode 114, and a second inductor may be connected between the cathode bias line 122b and the cathode of the photodiode 114.
Shi is silent on specific position of the first inductor and the second inductor. Besides, in Shi, bias lines are connected with the radiating arms 110a, 110b of antenna, and inductors are connected with the bias lines and the photodiode. Therefore, Shi fails to disclose nor suggest: wherein the two antenna radiating bodies further comprise an antenna electrode and a choke structure, both of which are disposed on the antenna substrate;
the antenna electrode is connected directly with an end of one of the antenna radiating bodies and the choke structure is connected directly with an end of the other antenna radiating bodies.
None of Chang, Gunzelmann and Morf cures the above deficiencies. Therefore, claim 1 is patentable. “
Applicant’s arguments are moot because claim 1 is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shen et al, NPL “High-Power V-Band-to-G-Band Photonically Driven Electromagnetic Emitters” as explained above.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2025 regarding claim 7 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that “As acknowledged on page 15 of the action, the combination of Shen and Morf does not disclose the above features, and the examiner further relies upon Shi. For similar reasons as mentioned above, Shi also fails to disclose nor teach the above features.
None of Nakano, Annamaa, Miller, Tang, Chang and Gunzelmann cures the above deficiencies. Therefore, claim 7 is patentable.”
Examiner respectfully disagreed because Shen teaches this new added limitation as explained above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argued that “For claim 21, as acknowledged on page 11 of the Action, the combination of Shen and Morf does not disclose a thickness of the support plate is a quarter of a wavelength corresponding to a central frequency of the integrated antenna. None of Nakano, Annamaa, Miller, Tang, Chang and Gunzelmann cures the above deficiency. Therefore, claim 21 is also patentable.”
Applicant’s arguments are moot because claim 21 is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen in view of Bulja et al, US-20200161759-A1.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argued that “As to claim 22, Cheng merely discloses that spiral antenna substrate is indium phosphide InP substrate, however, Cheng is silent on a material of the UTC-PD. Therefore, Cheng fails to disclose the above feature.
None of Shi, Gunzelmann, Chang or Morf cures the above deficiency.
As acknowledged on page 8 of the Action, the combination of Cheng and Gunzelmann does not disclose the photodiode embedded in the antenna substrate, however, the Examiner further relies on Morf to disclose the photodiode embedded in the antenna substrate. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
In Morf, FIG. 3 shows a schematic cross-section of the sensor circuit 201 as shown in FIG. 2. The sensor circuit 201 is implemented as integrated circuit. It comprises the antenna 205 and the FET 206. (paragraph 0039 emphasis added).
Therefore, Morf fails to disclose the photodiode embedded in the antenna substrate.
Besides, Morf is directed to a detector rather than an antenna. Specifically, detector 200 receives electromagnetic waves via the antenna 205. The electromagnetic energy received by the antenna 205 is converted to heat by means of the gate resistance of the gate 207. This is in turn heating up the drain-source channel of the FET 206 which functions as temperature- sensitive part of the detector 200. This in turn affects and influences the drain-source leakage current of the FET 206 which is amplified by means of the amplifier circuit 204 and can then be measured by a further not shown measurement unit. (Paragraph 0038). Therefore, Morf is not able to teach the above feature.
Shi fails to cure the above deficiencies.
Altogether, claim 22 is also patentable.”
Applicant’s arguments are moot because claim 22 is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shen et al, NPL “High-Power V-Band-to-G-Band Photonically Driven Electromagnetic Emitters” as explained above.
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 ANH N HO whose telephone number is (571)272-4657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dameon Levi can be reached at (571)272-2105. 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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/ANH N HO/Examiner, Art Unit 2845