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 under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy of foreign patent application number 2110716.4, filed in Great Britian on July 26, 2021, has been received and made of record.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (lDS) submitted on January 25, 2024, and the IDS submitted on March 13, 2025, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and are being considered by the Examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on December 19, 2025, is acknowledged.
Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“processing unit” in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 3,936,639 to Barrett.
Regarding claim 1, Barrett teaches an optical device comprising a sensor (e.g., fig. 1, element 32; col. 4, line 17), and a mask structure configured to provide a first mask covering at least a part of the sensor (e.g., figs. 7-9; col. 4, lines 49-51; col. 9, lines 1-29, mask 150) and a second mask covering at least a part of the sensor (e.g., figs. 7-9; col. 4, lines 49-51; col. 9, lines 1-29, mask 152), wherein the second mask is the anti-mask of the first mask (e.g., col. 9, lines 1-29), and wherein the sensor is configured to provide first output signals for light transmitted through the first mask and second output signals for light transmitted through the second mask (e.g., col. 10, lines 27-40; also, the sensor outputs signals associated with each mask, therefore, absent recitations related to separate sensor readings, the sensor is configured to provide first output signals for light transmitted through the first mask and second output signals for light transmitted through the second mask).
Regarding claim 3, Barrett teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein each of the first and second masks is a binary mask (e.g., figs. 7-9; col. 9, lines 1-29).
Regarding claim 4, Barrett teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the first mask comprises a checkerboard pattern comprising a plurality of squares (e.g., fig. 9; col. 9, lines 71-29).
Regarding claim 5, Barrett teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 4, supra) including teaching wherein the second mask comprises the same checkerboard pattern shifted vertically or horizontally by an odd number of squares (e.g., fig. 9; col. 9, lines 71-29).
Regarding claim 6, Barrett teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein each of the first and second masks comprises a uniformly redundant array, URA, pattern (e.g., figs. 7-9; col. 9, lines 1-29).
Claims 1-3, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0030625 to Cattin-Liebl.
Regarding claim 1, Cattin-Liebl teaches an optical device comprising a sensor (e.g., fig. 3, element 18; [0029], [0038]), and a mask structure configured to provide a first mask covering at least a part of the sensor (e.g., fig. 3, mask G+; [0033]) and a second mask covering at least a part of the sensor (e.g., fig. 3, mask G-; [0033]),
wherein the second mask is the anti-mask of the first mask (e.g., fig. 3; [0033]), and
wherein the sensor is configured to provide first output signals for light transmitted through the first mask and second output signals for light transmitted through the second mask (e.g., fig. 3; [0038]; the sensor outputs signals associated with each mask, therefore, absent recitations related to separate sensor readings, the sensor is configured to provide first output signals for light transmitted through the first mask and second output signals for light transmitted through the second mask).
Regarding claim 2, Cattin-Liebl teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the first mask covers substantially a first half of an area of the sensor and the second mask covers substantially a second half of the area (e.g., fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Cattin-Liebl teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein each of the first and second masks is a binary mask (e.g., fig. 3; [0033]; positive or negative, transparent or opaque).
Regarding claim 6, Cattin-Liebl teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein each of the first and second masks comprises a uniformly redundant array, URA, pattern (e.g., fig. 3; [0033]).
Regarding claim 7, Cattin-Liebl teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the first mask comprises a random or pseudo-random pattern (e.g., [0033]).
Claims 1-3, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by International Publication No. WO 2006/061819 A1 to Elbit Systems LTD (hereinafter “Elbit”).
Regarding claim 1, Elbit teaches an optical device comprising a sensor (e.g., fig. 3, elements 184), and a mask structure configured to provide a first mask covering at least a part of the sensor (e.g., fig. 3, 183A element 180A, 183B element 180B…183N element 180N) and a second mask covering at least a part of the sensor (e.g., fig. 3, 183A element 182A, 183B element 182B…183N element 182N), wherein the second mask is the anti-mask of the first mask (e.g., figs, 2A-3; p. 15, encoded masks and complementary encoded masks) and wherein the sensor is configured to provide first output signals for light transmitted through the first mask and second output signals for light transmitted through the second mask (e.g., p. 31, lines 10-25; the sensor outputs signals associated with each mask, therefore, absent recitations related to separate sensor readings, the sensor is configured to provide first output signals for light transmitted through the first mask and second output signals for light transmitted through the second mask).
Regarding claim 2, Elbit teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the first mask covers substantially a first half of an area of the sensor and the second mask covers substantially a second half of the area (e.g., fig. 3, cumulatively).
Regarding claim 3, Elbit teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein each of the first and second masks is a binary mask (e.g., figs. 2A and 2B).
Regarding claim 6, Elbit teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein each of the first and second masks comprises a uniformly redundant array, URA, pattern (e.g., figs. 2A and 2B).
Regarding claim 7, Elbit teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the first mask comprises a random or pseudo-random pattern (e.g., figs. 2A and 2B).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0122958 to Mihailescu et al. (hereinafter “Mihailescu”).
Regarding claim 16, Mihailescu teaches a method of determining a movement of an object, the method comprising receiving with a sensor light from the object transmitted through a first mask and providing first output signals (e.g., fig. 5; abstract; [0050]), receiving light with the sensor from the object transmitted through a second mask and providing second output signals (e.g., fig. 5; abstract; [0050]), wherein the second mask is the anti-mask of the first mask (e.g., fig. 5; [0050]), and determining a velocity and/or trajectory of the object from the first and second output signals (e.g., abstract; [0062-63]).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrett in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0090964 to You et al. (hereinafter “You”).
Regarding claim 8, Barrett teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the first and second masks comprise a patterned polymer layer, which blocks at least light having a wavelength in the range of 900 nm to 1200 nm.
Nevertheless, You teaches a mask comprise a patterned polymer layer (e.g., [0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have employed the material as taught by You with the masks of the device as taught by Barrett in order to expressly employ a known material that is also light weight, reducing an overall weight of the device. You also teaches that “[t]his material may also reflect and/or transmit a desired portion of light, if desired.” (e.g., [0052]). In light of this, it would merely be a matter of design choice for the polymer layer to blocks at least light having a wavelength in the range of 900 nm to 1200 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have blocked non-essential light above that of general human vision (380-750nm), such as the near-infrared range.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cattin-Liebl in view of You.
Regarding claim 8, Cattin-Liebl teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the first and second masks comprise a patterned polymer layer, which blocks at least light having a wavelength in the range of 900 nm to 1200 nm.
Nevertheless, You teaches a mask comprise a patterned polymer layer (e.g., [0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have employed the material as taught by You with the masks of the device as taught by Cattin-Liebl in order to expressly employ a known material that is also light weight, reducing an overall weight of the device. You also teaches that “[t]his material may also reflect and/or transmit a desired portion of light, if desired.” (e.g., [0052]). In light of this, it would merely be a matter of design choice for the polymer layer to blocks at least light having a wavelength in the range of 900 nm to 1200 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have blocked non-essential light above that of general human vision (380-750nm), such as the near-infrared range.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elbit in view of You.
Regarding claim 8, Elbit teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the first and second masks comprise a patterned polymer layer, which blocks at least light having a wavelength in the range of 900 nm to 1200 nm.
Nevertheless, You teaches a mask comprise a patterned polymer layer (e.g., [0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have employed the material as taught by You with the masks of the device as taught by Elbit in order to expressly employ a known material that is also light weight, reducing an overall weight of the device. You also teaches that “[t]his material may also reflect and/or transmit a desired portion of light, if desired.” (e.g., [0052]). In light of this, it would merely be a matter of design choice for the polymer layer to blocks at least light having a wavelength in the range of 900 nm to 1200 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have blocked non-essential light above that of general human vision (380-750nm), such as the near-infrared range.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrett in view of International Publication No. WO 2022/045969 A1 to D’Aleo et al. (hereinafter “D’Aleo”).
Regarding claim 9, Barret teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the mask structure comprises a liquid crystal display, LCD, and the first and second mask are provided by activating or deactivating cells of the LCD, such that the first and second masks are temporally separated.
Nevertheless, D’Aleo teaches using a mask structure comprising a liquid crystal display, LCD (e.g., p. 5, line 10), and the first and second mask are provided by activating or deactivating cells of the LCD, such that the first and second masks are temporally separated (e.g., p. 5 lines 12-22, at least temporally over multiple uses; note the temporal language is directed to operation and not tied to structure of the device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the mask structure as taught by D’Aleo with the device as taught by Barrett in order to allow for the masks to be adapted to a given scenario (e.g., ‘486 – p. 5, lines 12-13), without requiring labor-intensive physical replacement.
Regarding claim 10, Barret teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the mask structure comprises a layer of transistors.
Nevertheless, D’Aleo teaches a mask structure comprising a layer of transistors (e.g., p. 5, line 32-34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the structure as taught by D’Aleo with the device as taught by Barrett in order to enable a means for different mask patterns to be adapted to a given scenario (e.g., ‘486 – p. 5, lines 12-13), without requiring labor-intensive physical replacement.
Regarding claim 11, Barret teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the mask structure comprises a layer of emitters.
Nevertheless, D’Aleo teaches a mask structure comprising a layer of emitters (e.g., p. 5, line 35-36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the structure as taught by D’Aleo with the device as taught by Barrett in order to enable a means for different mask patterns to be adapted to a given scenario (e.g., ‘486 – p. 5, lines 12-13), without requiring labor-intensive physical replacement.
Regarding claim 12, Barret teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the mask structure is reconfigurable in order to change the first and second masks depending on an application of the optical device.
Nevertheless, D’Aleo teaches a similar device wherein a mask structure is reconfigurable in order to change the first and second masks depending on an application of the optical device (e.g., p. 5, lines 7-23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the structure as taught by D’Aleo with the device as taught by Barrett in order to enable a means for different mask patterns to be adapted to a given scenario (e.g., ‘486 – p. 5, lines 12-13), without requiring labor-intensive physical replacement.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cattin-Liebl in view of International Publication No. WO 2022/045969 A1 to D’Aleo et al. (hereinafter “D’Aleo”).
Regarding claim 9, Cattin-Liebl teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the mask structure comprises a liquid crystal display, LCD, and the first and second mask are provided by activating or deactivating cells of the LCD, such that the first and second masks are temporally separated.
Nevertheless, D’Aleo teaches using a mask structure comprising a liquid crystal display, LCD (e.g., p. 5, line 10), and the first and second mask are provided by activating or deactivating cells of the LCD, such that the first and second masks are temporally separated (e.g., p. 5 lines 12-22, at least temporally over multiple uses; note the temporal language is directed to operation and not tied to structure of the device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the mask structure as taught by D’Aleo with the device as taught by Cattin-Liebl in order to allow for the masks to be adapted to a given scenario (e.g., ‘486 – p. 5, lines 12-13), without requiring labor-intensive physical replacement.
Regarding claim 10, Cattin-Liebl teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the mask structure comprises a layer of transistors.
Nevertheless, D’Aleo teaches a mask structure comprising a layer of transistors (e.g., p. 5, line 32-34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the structure as taught by D’Aleo with the device as taught by Cattin-Liebl in order to enable a means for different mask patterns to be adapted to a given scenario (e.g., ‘486 – p. 5, lines 12-13), without requiring labor-intensive physical replacement.
Regarding claim 11, Cattin-Liebl teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the mask structure comprises a layer of emitters.
Nevertheless, D’Aleo teaches a mask structure comprising a layer of emitters (e.g., p. 5, line 35-36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the structure as taught by D’Aleo with the device as taught by Cattin-Liebl in order to enable a means for different mask patterns to be adapted to a given scenario (e.g., ‘486 – p. 5, lines 12-13), without requiring labor-intensive physical replacement.
Regarding claim 12, Cattin-Liebl teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the mask structure is reconfigurable in order to change the first and second masks depending on an application of the optical device.
Nevertheless, D’Aleo teaches a similar device wherein a mask structure is reconfigurable in order to change the first and second masks depending on an application of the optical device (e.g., p. 5, lines 7-23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the structure as taught by D’Aleo with the device as taught by Cattin-Liebl in order to enable a means for different mask patterns to be adapted to a given scenario (e.g., ‘486 – p. 5, lines 12-13), without requiring labor-intensive physical replacement.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elbit in view of International Publication No. WO 2022/045969 A1 to D’Aleo et al. (hereinafter “D’Aleo”).
Regarding claim 9, Elbit teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the mask structure comprises a liquid crystal display, LCD, and the first and second mask are provided by activating or deactivating cells of the LCD, such that the first and second masks are temporally separated.
Nevertheless, D’Aleo teaches using a mask structure comprising a liquid crystal display, LCD (e.g., p. 5, line 10), and the first and second mask are provided by activating or deactivating cells of the LCD, such that the first and second masks are temporally separated (e.g., p. 5 lines 12-22, at least temporally over multiple uses; note the temporal language is directed to operation and not tied to structure of the device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the mask structure as taught by D’Aleo with the device as taught by Elbit in order to allow for the masks to be adapted to a given scenario (e.g., ‘486 – p. 5, lines 12-13), without requiring labor-intensive physical replacement.
Regarding claim 10, Elbit teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the mask structure comprises a layer of transistors.
Nevertheless, D’Aleo teaches a mask structure comprising a layer of transistors (e.g., p. 5, line 32-34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the structure as taught by D’Aleo with the device as taught by Elbit in order to enable a means for different mask patterns to be adapted to a given scenario (e.g., ‘486 – p. 5, lines 12-13), without requiring labor-intensive physical replacement.
Regarding claim 11, Elbit teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the mask structure comprises a layer of emitters.
Nevertheless, D’Aleo teaches a mask structure comprising a layer of emitters (e.g., p. 5, line 35-36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the structure as taught by D’Aleo with the device as taught by Elbit in order to enable a means for different mask patterns to be adapted to a given scenario (e.g., ‘486 – p. 5, lines 12-13), without requiring labor-intensive physical replacement.
Regarding claim 12, Elbit teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the mask structure is reconfigurable in order to change the first and second masks depending on an application of the optical device.
Nevertheless, D’Aleo teaches a similar device wherein a mask structure is reconfigurable in order to change the first and second masks depending on an application of the optical device (e.g., p. 5, lines 7-23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the structure as taught by D’Aleo with the device as taught by Elbit in order to enable a means for different mask patterns to be adapted to a given scenario (e.g., ‘486 – p. 5, lines 12-13), without requiring labor-intensive physical replacement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 14, 17 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0075990 to Lanza et al. teaches a similar example of coded aperture imaging employing complementary mask patterns.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0279737 to Strens teaches an example of a reconfigurable mask.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY C VIEAUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7318. The examiner can normally be reached Increased Flex.
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, Lin Ye can be reached at 571-272-7372. 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.
/GARY C VIEAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638