DETAILED ACTION
Response to Remarks
1. Applicant’s remarks directed to the indefiniteness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive (see pgs. 7-8 of Remarks filed on 06/11/2026). Applicant states that “The specification discloses that "the log polar optics assembly 108 consists of one or more log polar optics such as 110 and 112”. However, it remains unclear what structure/element/material corresponds to the “110” and/or “112”. Furthermore, Applicant’s newly amended claims 14-20 recite limitations directed to “the second optics assembly includes log-polar optics adapted to transform the beam into an asymmetric perfect vortex”. It is unclear if a specific material/structure/element must be present in the log-polar optics to perform the function transforming the beam into an asymmetric perfect vortex. A claim term is functional when it recites a feature "by what it does rather than by what it is". Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(g), citing In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971) and Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be rendered indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). Furthermore, such a limitation is directed to a contingent clause, i.e., “adapted to…”, which raises the question as to the limiting effect of the claim scope. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having such a contingent limitation directed to a structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See MPEP § 2111.04. In the present case, it is unclear what structure is being referred to as performing the contingent limitation of being “adapted to transform the beam into an asymmetric perfect vortex”. The instant specification appears to be completely silent with respect to any corresponding material/structure/element for the log-polar optic within the second optics assembly, thereby rendering the metes and bounds of claims 14-20 as unascertainable and indefinite. To conclude, Applicant’s remarks accompanied by amendments to the claims are insufficient to overcome the indefiniteness rejection (see pg. 7 of Non-Final Office Action on 03/25/2026) for the reasons outlined supra.
2. Applicant appears to make arguments regarding the Ashrafi reference as utilized in the prior art rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103, that “Ashrafi does not disclose or teach "multiple coherent spiral beams having embedded orbital angular momentum with control of amplitude and relative phase” (pgs. 14-15 of Remarks). Applicant further states “Ashrafi teaches various OAM beam generation approaches including "a spiral phase plate," "diffractive phase holograms," and "a pixelated spatial light modulator (SLM)" where "each OAM state requires a different specific plate." Ashrafi, col. 33, 11. 61-67; col. 34, 11. 5-17. These are individual OAM beam generation methods, not systems adapted to provide multiple coherent spiral beams with control of amplitude and relative phase” (pgs. 14-15). However, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s narrow selection of certain portions of the Ashrafi reference disclosure to argue a lack of obviousness. Applicant is respectfully reminded that "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In the present case, Ashrafi does indeed teach the orbital angular momentum generator is adapted to provide multiple coherent spiral beams having embedded orbital angular momentum (col. 33: single or multiple OAM beams can be obtained directly from the output of a laser cavity or by converting a fundamental Gaussian beam into an OAM (i.e., coherent beams); col. 35-36: multiple coaxially propagating OAM beams with different l states (i.e., embedded orbital angular momentum (OAM)); see FIG. 32 showing 4 OAM beams; col. 33-34: The converter could be a spiral phase plate… a helical phase profile exp(ilθ) converts a linearly polarized Gaussian laser beam into an OAM mode, whose wave front resembles an l-fold corkscrew 2806 (i.e., spiral nature of OAM beams), as shown at 2804) with control of amplitude and relative phase (col. 33-34: Importantly, the generated OAM beam can be easily changed by simply updating the hologram loaded on the SLM 280, To generate a pure LG_(l,p) mode, one must jointly control both the phase and the intensity [amplitude] of the wavefront using a phase-only SLM with a more complex phase hologram). It is commonly known in the art of optics that SLM’s control phase and intensity of beams, wherein the intensity is directly proportional to the amplitude of the light. Thus, Ashrafi’s SLM comprised within the angular momentum generator apparatus satisfies the functional limitations of amplitude control and relative phase control of the beams as recited. The Examiner notes that claim 17 recites contingent limitations directed to the orbital angular momentum generator being “adapted to” perform two functions, namely to (i) provide multiple coherent spiral beams having embedded orbital angular momentum and to (ii) control amplitude and relative phase (see corresponding indefiniteness rejection detailed further below). Therefore, the present claim language allows Ashrafi’s orbital angular momentum generator to satisfy the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed contingent limitations in light of the as-filed specification, and the Examiner maintains that the claimed limitation would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as detailed below.
3. Applicant’s remaining remarks regarding the prior art rejection as anticipated by Ogura and/or Fahrbach (pgs. 8-12 and 14-17 of Remarks) and regarding the prior art rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Ashrafi and/or Konno (pgs. 13-16) have been fully considered but are moot upon further consideration because the new grounds of rejection in light of a change of statutory basis and/or in light of Ashrafi et al. and/or Sun et al.’s teachings are necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments (on 06/11/2026), as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 14-20 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The replacement claims submitted 06/11/2026 were not filed with the original disclosure filed on 05/16/2023 and are therefore examined for new matter, see MPEP 608.04(b) and 714.01(e). Claim 14 limitation “An orbital angular momentum generator configured to generate a beam having orbital angular momentum with a helical phase front” amounts to prohibited new matter. Specifically, the limitation directed to a helical phase front lacks support in the original specification and claims submitted 05/16/2023 because all embodiments corresponding to FIGS. 1-15 fail to disclose a ‘helical phase front’ of the claimed beam having orbital angular momentum or provide any clarification of how one could characterize such a phase front of the generated beam.
Claims 15-20 inherit the deficiencies of the rejected base claim, and are thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). The Examiner respectfully suggests that the claims be amended to recite range limitations that are supported by the originally-filed specification.
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.
Claims 14-20 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.
1. A claim term is functional when it recites a feature "by what it does rather than by what it is". Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(g), citing In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971) and Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be rendered indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971).
In the present case, Claim 14 limitation: “the second optics assembly includes log-polar optics adapted to transform the beam into an asymmetric perfect vortex” is unclear as it recites functional language without providing a discernable boundary on what element of the log polar optics comprised within the assembly performs the function. Specifically, it is unclear if a specific material/structure/element must be present in the log-polar optics to perform the function transforming the beam into an asymmetric perfect vortex. Furthermore, such a limitation is directed to a contingent clause, i.e., “adapted to…”, which raises the question as to the limiting effect of the claim scope. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having such a contingent limitation directed to a structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See MPEP § 2111.04. In the present case, it is unclear what structure is being referred to as performing the contingent limitation of being “adapted to transform the beam into an asymmetric perfect vortex”. The instant specification appears to be completely silent with respect to any corresponding material/structure/element for the log-polar optic within the second optics assembly. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned, rendering Claim 14 as indefinite. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be treated as inherent.
2. Claim 17 recites: “the orbital angular momentum generator is adapted to provide multiple coherent spiral beams having embedded orbital angular momentum with control of amplitude and relative phase”. Such a limitation is directed to a contingent clause, i.e., “adapted to…”, which raises the question as to the limiting effect of the claim scope. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having such a contingent limitation directed to a structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See MPEP § 2111.04. In the present case, it is unclear what structure comprised within the orbital angular momentum generator is performing the functional (and contingent) limitations of being “adapted to provide multiple coherent spiral beams having embedded orbital angular momentum with control of amplitude and relative phase”. The generic claim language appears ipsis verbis in the instant specification and the disclosure fails to explain or elucidate any corresponding material/structure/element performing the aforementioned functions within the orbital angular momentum generator. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned, rendering claim 17 as indefinite. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be treated as inherent.
Claims 15-20 inherit the deficiency of Claim 14 and are thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 14-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogura (US 2002/0114081 A1) in view of Ashrafi et al. (US 9,998,187 B2).
Regarding Claim 14, as best understood, Ogura discloses: An orbital angular momentum generator (¶0016) comprising a laser source adapted to provide a first beam (¶0016: A laser beam issuing from the laser 1…a first deflector 4 steers the laser beam); an acousto-optic deflector adapted to receive a radio frequency and the first beam and emit a second beam (¶0026: the AOD constituting the first deflector 4 can modulate the intensity of the laser beam by amplitude modulation at preselected frequency and can modulate the angle of the laser beam by modulating radio frequency); a first optics assembly adapted to shape the second beam to emit a third beam; and, a scanning mirror adapted to direct the third beam to a second optics assembly adapted to shape the third beam and emit a fourth beam (¶0016-17: The laser beam being steered is incident to a second deflector 8 via a cylindrical lens 5, a collimator lens 6, and a mirror 7 [first optics assembly]…The second deflector 8 steers the incident laser beam in the direction x…The laser beam being steered in the main scanning direction x scans a scanning plane 12 with a preselected beam configuration via focusing optics 9 [second optics assembly]. A 45.degree. mirror, not shown, intervenes between the second deflector 8 and the scanning plane 12 [scanning mirror]; ¶0022: In the focusing optics 9, the f/.theta. lens 11 focuses the laser beam in both of the main scanning direction x and subscanning direction y while the cylindrical lens 11 focuses it only in the subscanning direction y. As a result, the laser beam forms an elliptical beam spot [fourth beam] having a substantially Gaussian intensity distribution in both of the directions x and y, as shown in FIG. 2; ¶0025: second deflector 8 can be driven at high speed and a galvanometer mirror having a wide scanning angle. Further, as for the deflector 8, use may be made of a polygonal mirror).
Ogura does not appear to explicitly disclose: an orbital angular momentum generator configured to generate a beam having orbital angular momentum with a helical phase front, wherein the second optics assembly includes log-polar optics adapted to transform the beam into an asymmetric perfect vortex.
Ashrafi is related to Ogura with respect to an orbital angular momentum generator comprising a laser source and optical assemblies (c. 11, c. 26; c. 33-34), and Ashrafi teaches: an orbital angular momentum generator configured to generate a beam having orbital angular momentum with a helical phase front (c. 15-16: the wave vector spirals around the beam axis 1006, leading to a helical phase front 1008, as shown in FIGS. 10C and 10D… a unique orbital angular momentum is applied to a signal as described here and above, the Poynting vector S 1010 will spiral about the direction of propagation of the signal; col. 35: beam can be isolated from the other beams, which still have helical phase fronts by using a spatial mode filter 3308), wherein the second optics assembly includes log-polar optics adapted to transform the beam into an asymmetric perfect vortex (col. 63: the odd and even modes (for example HE.sup.odd and HE.sup.even modes) are always degenerate (i.e. have equal n.sub.eff), regardless of the index profile. These modes will be non-degenerate only in the case of circularly asymmetric index profiles; col. 36: OAM beam with a ring-shaped beam profile; cols. 90-91: Phase and amplitude information may be encoded into a beam by modulating the position and width of a binary amplitude grating used as a hologram, the creation of OAM vortex mode may be realized…fractional OAM modes may also be presented by the DMD using fractional binary forks for generating fractional OAM modes of 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.25, 1.50 and 1.75 with a light beam).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the orbital angular momentum generator of Ogura in view of Ashrafi to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a generation of a beam having a helical phase front is known and would be selected “to be potentially useful in the 2 categories of: 1) encoding and decoding more bets on a single optical pulse; a typical example is the use of advanced modulation formats, which encode information on amplitude, phase and polarization states, and 2) multiplexing and demultiplexing technologies that allow parallel propagation of multiple independent data channels, each of which is addressed by different light property, to help improve the performance of a free space or fiber communication system. Specifically, OAM states could be used as a different dimension to encode bits on a single pulse (or a single photon), or be used to create additional data carriers in an SDM system” (col. 8 of Ashrafi); furthermore, such optics adapted to transform the beam into an asymmetric perfect vortex allows differing type of information to be transmitted on the same frequency since these signals are separately detectable and do not interfere with each other, as taught in col. 18 of Ashrafi.
Regarding Claim 15, as best understood, Ogura discloses the orbital angular momentum generator according to Claim 14, as above. Ashrafi further discloses: wherein the second optics assembly comprising one or more log-polar optics configured to map a beam into a spiral (col. 67: Spiral Phase Plates (SPPs) such as that illustrated in FIG. 11e, transform a plane wave (l=0) to a twisted wave of a specific helicity (i.e. l=+1); c. 87: OAM beams are launched onto a reflective SLM 10910 loaded with a spiral phase pattern; c. 18: FIG. 10B, when a unique orbital angular momentum is applied to a signal as described here and above, the Poynting vector S 1010 will spiral about the direction of propagation of the signal. This spiral may be varied in order to enable signals to be transmitted on the same frequency as described herein. FIGS. 12A through 12C illustrate the differences in signals having different helicity (i.e., orbital angular momentums). Each of the spiraling Poynting vectors associated with the signals 1102, 1104, and 1106 provide a different shaped signal).
Regarding Claim 16, Ogura discloses the orbital angular momentum generator according to Claim 14, as above. Ogura further discloses: wherein the first beam is an elliptical beam (FIG. 2; ¶0022: the laser beam forms an elliptical beam spot having a substantially Gaussian intensity distribution in both of the directions x and y).
Regarding Claim 18, Ogura discloses the orbital angular momentum generator according to Claim 14, as above. Ogura further discloses: wherein the acousto-optic deflector is adapted to include a linear phase gradient into the second beam (¶0028: the first deflector 4 corrects bending or waving in the main scanning direction x for thereby enhancing linearity in the main direction x; see FIG. 1 showing second beam with phase as claimed).
Regarding Claim 19, Ogura discloses the orbital angular momentum generator according to Claim 14, as above. Ogura further discloses: wherein the first optics assembly is adapted to include a linear phase gradient into the second beam (¶0021-22: The beam expander 3 cooperates with the cylindrical lens 5 [first optics assembly] and collimator lens 6, which will be described later specifically, to control the beam spot… the cylindrical lens 11 focuses it only in the subscanning direction y; see FIG. 1 showing second beam with phase as claimed).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogura (US 2002/0114081 A1) in view of Ashrafi et al. (US 9,998,187 B2), and further in view of Sun et al. (CN 111596462 A).
Regarding Claim 17, as best understood, Ogura-Ashrafi discloses the orbital angular momentum generator according to Claim 14, as above.
Ogura-Ashrafi does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the laser source is a femtosecond pulsed laser. Sun is related to Ogura with respect to an orbital angular momentum generator comprising a laser source and optical assemblies (¶0026, 0033, 0039, 0073), and Sun teaches: wherein the laser source is a femtosecond pulsed laser (¶0073: the femtosecond pulsed laser (center wavelength 780nm, pulse width 100fs, repetition frequency 80MHz) generated by the fiber femtosecond laser oscillator passes sequentially through a graded density attenuator and an electrically controlled shutter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the orbital angular momentum generator of Ogura in view of Sun to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a laser is known and would be selected as a direct high resolution writing and processing system for generating an angular momentum beam which has a continuous surface profile that is difficult to achieve with other processing technologies, thus having the advantage of high beam quality, as taught in ¶0041, 0049, 0076 of Sun.
Ogura does not appear to explicitly disclose: the orbital angular momentum generator is adapted to provide multiple coherent spiral beams having embedded orbital angular momentum with control of amplitude and relative phase. Ashrafi is related to Ogura with respect to an orbital angular momentum generator comprising a laser source and optical assemblies (c. 11, c. 26; c. 33-34), and Ashrafi teaches: the orbital angular momentum generator is adapted to provide multiple coherent spiral beams having embedded orbital angular momentum with control of amplitude and relative phase (c. 33-34: multiple OAM beams directly from the output of a laser cavity, or by converting a fundamental Gaussian beam into an OAM beam outside a cavity. The converter could be a spiral phase plate… a helical phase profile exp(ilθ) converts a linearly polarized Gaussian laser beam into an OAM mode, whose wave front resembles an l-fold corkscrew 2806, as shown at 2804. Importantly, the generated OAM beam can be easily changed by simply updating the hologram loaded on the SLM 280, To generate a pure LG_(l,p) mode, one must jointly control both the phase and the intensity [amplitude] of the wavefront. This could be achieved using a phase-only SLM with a more complex phase hologram).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the orbital angular momentum generator of Ogura in view of Ashrafi to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a generation of coherent spiral beams allow differing type of information to be transmitted on the same frequency, since these signals are separately detectable and do not interfere with each other, and such a control of amplitude and phase of the orbital angular momentum may be used for multiplexing of multiple orthogonal beams in free space optical and RF transmission systems as taught in col. 18, 22 of Ashrafi.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 would be allowable if the rejections set forth in this Office action are overcome and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 20, the best prior art of Ogura (US 2002/0114081 A1) alone and/or in combination with Ashrafi et al. (US 9,998,187 B2) teaches:
an orbital angular momentum generator configured to generate a beam having orbital angular momentum with a helical phase front, the orbital angular momentum generator comprising: a laser source adapted to provide a first beam; an acousto-optic deflector adapted to receive a radio frequency and the first beam and emit a second beam; a first optics assembly adapted to shape the second beam to emit a third beam; and, a scanning mirror adapted to direct the third beam to a second optics assembly, wherein the second optics assembly includes log-polar optics adapted to transform the beam into an asymmetric perfect vortex.
However, the best prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
the scanning mirror is disposed between beam shaping optics and log-polar optics and is adapted to add a linear phase gradient that controls the OAM mode of the output beam, and wherein a scan rate associated with the scanning mirror is equal to or greater than one KHz.
Given the embodiments of Ogura and Ashrafi alone and/or in combination with additional references of Konno et al. (US 2008/0239252 A1) and/or Fahrbach (US 2019/0391375 A1), one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to modify the construction of the orbital angular momentum generator to arrive at the cumulatively claimed configuration satisfying the conditions recited directly above. Thus, the best prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach the cumulative conditions of claim 20 further satisfying the claimed features of the apparatus.
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 extension fee 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 SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700 (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, BUMSUK WON can be reached on 571-272-2713. 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.
/SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights