DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s 12/26/2025 Amendments/Arguments, which directly traversed the rejections of the claims of the 09/24/2025 Office Action are acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-18, 21-28, and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 16 and 26 the claims are rejected as being incomplete for omitting essential step(s) or an end result. The omitted step(s) is the step(s) wherein the claimed limitation is actually doing something tangible with the end result, i.e. the determined angle of arrival is put to use or output a concrete result.
Other claims are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16-18, 21-28, and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the device and method of determining an angle of arrival of a signal that is accomplished through a series of mental processes and/or mathematical operations. The claims also require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (i.e. processing unit as computer disclosed throughout Applicant’s specification). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claims elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the manipulation of data by a general purpose computer and/or performing by a person utilizing mathematical calculations. Thus, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices {Alice, 573 U.S. at 219—20, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas {Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594—95 (1978)); and mental processes {Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” {Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” {id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267—68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour {Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract...is not accorded the protection of our patent laws,…and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].”” Id. ((alteration in the original) quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requiring] generic computer implementation fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”). Under Step 2A of that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Analysis
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 16 ( and its dependents) recites a communication device. Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 26 ( and its dependents) recites a method. Thus, the claim is a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One – Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claims recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
Claim 16 recites the steps of:
a processing unit configured to determine an angle of arrival (AoA) of the ultra-wideband signal, wherein said AoA is based on a phase difference of arrival (PDoA) derived from the ultra-wideband signal; and
a polarization angle estimation unit configured to estimate a polarization angle of the ultra-wideband signal,
wherein the processing unit is further configured to determine the AoA of the ultra- wideband signal using the polarization angle estimated by the polarization angle estimation unit.
The “determine” steps may be performed by observing the received signal and the polarization angle estimated of the signal and generating the data based on the received signal which may be practically performed in the human mind and/or mathematical calculations using observation, evaluation, and judgment.
The “estimate” step may be performed by evaluating the data based on the received signal which may be practically performed in the human mind and/or mathematical calculations using observation, evaluation.
Claim 26 recites the steps of:
estimating, by the polarization angle estimation unit, a polarization angle of the ultra- wideband signal; and
determining, by the processing unit, an angle of arrival (AoA) of the ultra-wideband signal using a phase difference of arrival (PDoA) derived from the ultra-wideband signal and the polarization angle estimated by the polarization angle estimation unit.
The “estimating” step may be performed by evaluating the data based on the received signal which may be practically performed in the human mind and/or mathematical calculations using observation, evaluation.
The “determining” step may be performed by observing the received signal and the polarization angle estimated of the signal and generating the data based on the received signal which may be practically performed in the human mind and/or mathematical calculations using observation, evaluation, and judgment.
Therefore, such steps of as claimed in claims 16 and 26 encompass processes that can be performed mentally and/or by mathematical operations; thus, fall within “mental processes” and/or “mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas.
In addition, dependent claims 17-18, 21-25, 27-28, and 31-33 further claiming information gleaned from the mental processes and/or mathematical calculations.
Regarding claims 17-18, 21-25, 27-28, and 31-33, the further steps estimating the polarization angle, determining angle of arrival, and utilizing a machine-learning model as claimed may be practically performed in the human mind and/or mathematical calculations using observation, evaluation, and judgment.
Therefore, dependent claims 17-18, 21-25, 27-28, and 31-33 also falls within the “mental processes” and/or “mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas.
Since the claims recite an abstract idea, the analysis proceeds to Prong Two to determine whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The only additional elements of claim 16 is “a plurality of antennas configured to receive an ultra-wideband signal”; of claim 26 is “receiving, by the antennas, an ultra-wideband signal”. These limitations, at a high-level of generality, merely recites data gathering steps for further analyzing/determining steps. As such, it amounts to no more than insignificant extra--solution activity to the judicial exception. In addition, the antennas as claimed are operating in a known manner which simply provide what all antennas provide. They also act only for data communicating, gathering, and do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are no more than insignificant extra--solution activity to the judicial exception. Further, claims 16-18, 21-28, and 31-33 require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claims elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the manipulation of data by a general purpose computer and/or performing by a person. Accordingly, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, it is determined whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, convention” in the field.
As stated above, claims 16-18, 21-28, and 31-33 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Since this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements amount to no more than data gathering steps, mental processes and/or mathematical calculations. Merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide an inventive concept.
The courts have considered the following examples to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azzarelli et al (US 6,195,043).
PNG
media_image1.png
382
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
652
478
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Azzarelli et al disclose in Fig 5 and 7 above a communication device, comprising:
a plurality of antennas configured to receive a signal (i.e. RF antenna element array 511 with RF sensing elements 301) (col 11, lines 16-32);
a processing unit (i.e. digital signal processor 708) configured to determine an angle of arrival (AoA) of the signal (i.e. determination of polarization state and angles-of-arrival 721), wherein said AoA is based on a phase difference of arrival (PDoA) derived from the signal (i.e. correction of phase differences 717) (col 11, line 65 – col 12, line 31); and
a polarization angle estimation unit (i.e. determination of polarization state and angles-of-arrival 721) configured to estimate a polarization angle of the signal (i.e. reads on polarization states) (Abstract; col 12, lines 28-31),
wherein the processing unit is further configured to determine the AoA of the signal using the polarization angle estimated by the polarization angle estimation unit (i.e. determination of polarization state and angles-of-arrival 721) (col 9, lines 38-46; col 12, lines 25-31).
Azzarelli et al do not explicitly disclose the signal is ultra-wideband signal as claimed. However, ultra-wideband signal is well known in the art of telecommunication, direction finding and/or location tracking art (i.e. support for such well-known ultra-wideband signal can be found in Wang et al – WO 2018/0405 in which a machine translation in English was cited in previous Office Action – page 6, second to last paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize well-known ultra-wideband signal in the device of Azzarelli et al for high precision direction finding and/or location tracking in a system since such ultra-wideband signal is well-known in the telecommunication art.
While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 25, Azzarelli et al do not explicitly disclose the communication device is implemented in a localization system as claimed. However, such communication device for determining angle of arrival of the incoming signal / emission source is well known in the art to be implemented in a localization system art (i.e. support for such well-known communication device implemented in a localization system can be found in Wang et al – WO 2018/0405 in which a machine translation in English was cited in previous Office Action – page 3, fifth to last paragraph; page 12, third to last paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a well-known communication device implemented in a localization system in the device of Azzarelli et al for high precision direction finding and/or location tracking in a system since such communication device is well-known in the localization system art.
Regarding claim 26, Azzarelli et al disclose a method of operating a communication device, the communication device comprising a plurality of antennas (i.e. RF antenna element array 511 with RF sensing elements 301) (Fig 5 above), a processing unit (i.e. digital signal processor 708) (Fig 7 above) and a polarization angle estimation unit (i.e. determination of polarization state and angles-of-arrival 721) (Fig 7 above), the method comprising:
receiving, by the antennas, a signal (col 11, lines 16-32);
estimating, by the polarization angle estimation unit, a polarization angle of the signal (i.e. reads on polarization states) (Abstract; col 12, lines 28-31); and
determining, by the processing unit, an angle of arrival (AoA) of the signal using a phase difference of arrival (PDoA) derived from the signal (i.e. correction of phase differences 717) and the polarization angle estimated by the polarization angle estimation unit (col 9, lines 38-46; col 11, line 65 – col 12, line 31).
Azzarelli et al do not explicitly disclose the signal is ultra-wideband signal as claimed. However, ultra-wideband signal is well known in the art of telecommunication, direction finding and/or location tracking art (i.e. support for such well-known ultra-wideband signal can be found in Wang et al – WO 2018/0405 in which a machine translation in English was cited in previous Office Action – page 6, second to last paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize well-known ultra-wideband signal in the device of Azzarelli et al for high precision direction finding and/or location tracking in a system since such ultra-wideband signal is well-known in the telecommunication art.
While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Claims 17-18 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azzarelli et al as applied to claims 16 and 26 above, and further in view of Landon et al (WO 2008/147467).
Regarding claims 17 and 27, Azzarelli et al disclose the antennas have different polarizations (Fig 5 and 7 above) and wherein the polarization angle estimation unit (i.e. determination of polarization state and angles-of-arrival 721) is configured to estimate the polarization angle (i.e. reads on polarization states) (Abstract; col 12, lines 28-31). Azzarelli et al do not explicitly disclose the polarization angle estimation unit configured to estimate the polarization angle by measuring the ratio between the strength of the ultra-wideband signal received at a first one of said antennas and the strength of the ultra-wideband signal received at a second one of said antennas as claimed. Landon et al teach in the same field of endeavor a polarization angle estimation unit configured to estimate the polarization angle by measuring the ratio between the strength of the ultra-wideband signal received at a first one of said antennas and the strength of the ultra-wideband signal received at a second one of said antennas (page 5, lines 25-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Azzarelli et al in view of Landon et al by incorporating such polarization angle estimation unit configured to estimate the polarization angle by measuring the ratio between the strength of the ultra-wideband signal received at a first one of said antennas and the strength of the ultra-wideband signal received at a second one of said antennas as taught by Landon et al to gain advantage of properly determining the angle of arrival of the received signal; and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claims 18 and 28, Azzarelli et al do not explicitly disclose the polarization of the first one of said antennas is 0° or substantially 0° and the polarization of the second one of said antennas is different from 0° as claimed. Landon et al teach in the same field of endeavor the polarization of the first one of said antennas is 0° or substantially 0° and the polarization of the second one of said antennas is different from 0° (page 9, lines 20-23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Azzarelli et al in view of Landon et al by incorporating such polarization of the first one of said antennas is 0° or substantially 0° and the polarization of the second one of said antennas is different from 0° as taught by Landon et al to gain advantage of providing diversity in antenna polarization for properly determining the angle of arrival of the received signal; and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-24 and 31-33 are rejected 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 and if overcome the 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 101 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2025/0219300 discloses an antenna system including multiple range antennas and multiple angle-of-arrival antennas for electronic devices. In some embodiments, the antenna system can include a plurality of substantially orthogonal range antennas and a plurality of angle-of-arrival antennas, where a processing system on an initiator device can determine which of the plurality of substantially orthogonal range antennas to select for subsequent angle-of-arrival measurements. This can, for example, reduce polarization mismatch between the antenna systems of initiator devices and responder devices.
US 11,057,742 discloses a method for facilitating a relative position determination, comprising: a first radio frequency (RF) communication device measures a first angle of arrival, being an angle of arrival of a first RF signal received from a second RF communication device; the first RF communication device senses its orientation at a first time, resulting in a first orientation; the first RF communication device measures a second angle of arrival, being an angle of arrival of a second RF signal received from the second RF communication device; the first RF communication device senses its orientation at a second time, resulting in a second orientation; the relative position of the second RF communication device with respect to the first RF communication device is determined using a difference between the first angle of arrival and the second angle of arrival and a difference between the first orientation and the second orientation.
US 10,903,566 discloses an electronic device may be provided with wireless circuitry that includes antenna structures used to determine the position and orientation of the electronic device relative to external wireless equipment. The electronic device may include a housing having a planar conductive layer, a first slot antenna that includes a first bent slot element in the planar conductive layer, and a second slot antenna that includes a second bent slot element in the planar conductive layer. The first and second bent slot elements may be configured to receive radio-frequency signals at the same frequency. The first and second bent slot elements may have the same shape. The electronic device may include control circuitry configured to measure a phase difference between the radio-frequency signals received by the first and second slot antennas. The control circuitry may identify an angle of arrival of the received radio-frequency signals based on the measured phase difference.
WO 2023/212028 discloses various arrangements for determining a direction using ultra-wideband (UWB) communications. A first range can be determined based on a first UWB message received by a first antenna. A second range can then be determined using a second antenna. An angle of arrival can be calculated using the first range and the second range. This calculated angle of arrival can then be output, such as via a display of a computerized device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 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, JACK KEITH can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646