DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The following features are not shown in the drawings:
Claim 16: “the projection of the first die onto the plane partially overlaps a projection of the third die onto the plane and a projection of the fourth die onto the plane”. However, claim 15 (the base claim for claim 16) recites: “a projection of the first die onto a plane parallel to the antenna unit support partially overlaps a projection of the second die onto the plane.” Therefore, the projection of the first die must simultaneously partially overlap the projections of a second, a third and a fourth die. None of the figures in the drawings shows such an arrangement of dies.
Therefore, the above features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim 1-14, 17, 19, and 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.
Claims 1, 17, and 19 recite: “substantially equal to”. The term “substantially equal” is indefinite. Furthermore, the Specification does not define a variance or any other qualitative parameter as a measure of determining when two values are substantially equal.
Claims 2-14 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 1 and are subsequently rejected, as well.
Claims 20 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 19 and is subsequently rejected, as well.
Claim 2 recites: “the average pitch of the antenna units”. It is not clear whether the average pitch of the antenna units is the same or different from the average pitch of projections of the antenna units onto the plane recited in claim 1. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as: “the average pitch of the projections of the antenna units onto the plane”.
Claim 3 recites: “the projections of the ICs are in a linear array of the projections” (line 3) and “the antenna units are in a linear array of the antenna units” (line 4). The meaning of these limitations is not clear. For examination purposes, in view of the Specification ([0037, 0051]), these limitations are interpreted as “the projections of the ICs are arranged in a linear array” and “the antenna units are arranged in a linear array”, respectively.
Claim 4 recites: “the projections of the ICs are in a two-dimensional array of the projections” (line 3) and “the antenna units are in a two-dimensional array of the antenna units” (line 4). The meaning of these limitations is not clear. For examination purposes, in view of the Specification ([0037, 0051]), these limitations are interpreted as “the projections of the ICs are arranged in a two-dimensional array” and “the antenna units are arranged in a two-dimensional array”, respectively.
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 1-9, 11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dogiamis et al. (US 20230307846 A1, hereinafter Dogiamis) in view of Dogiamis et al. (US 20230144206 A1, hereinafter Dogiamis-2).
Regarding claim 1, Dogiamis (Fig. 1) discloses an antenna module, comprising:
an antenna unit support (110);
a plurality of antenna units (118) over or at least partially in the antenna unit support; and
a plurality of integrated circuits (ICs) (120 and 122),
wherein:
the plurality of ICs includes two or more subsets of one or more ICs (regarding the two or more subsets of one or more ICs, see annotated Fig. 1 in Dogiamis below),
an individual IC of the plurality of ICs belongs to only one subset of the two or more subsets (see annotated Fig. 1 in Dogiamis below), and
PNG
media_image1.png
437
889
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an average pitch of projections of the ICs onto a plane parallel to the antenna unit support is substantially equal to or smaller than an average pitch of projections of the antenna units onto the plane (regarding the average pitch of projections of the ICs and the average pitch of projections of the antenna units onto the plane, see annotated Fig. 1 in Dogiamis below).
Dogiamis does not disclose the limitation wherein different subsets of the two or more subsets are in different layers with respect to the antenna unit support.
Dogiamis-2 (Fig. 2A) teaches an antenna module (100) wherein different subsets of two or more subsets of one or more ICs (208 and 210) are in different layers (204 and 206) with respect to the antenna unit support (212).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dogiamis so that different subsets of the two or more subsets are in different layers with respect to the antenna unit support as taught by Dogiamis-2. This modification would provide means for packaging a larger number of ICs in the antenna module without increasing the antenna module footprint.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Dogiamis teaches the antenna module of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Dogiamis does not teach the limitations wherein the average pitch of the antenna units is a dimension along an axis in the plane, and wherein an average dimension of the individual IC along the axis is larger than the average pitch of the antenna units.
Dogiamis-2 (Figs. 1B and 2A) teaches an average pitch (108 - Fig. 1B) of the antenna units (104) is a dimension along an axis in the plane, and an average dimension (D in annotated Fig. 2A in Dogiamis-2 below) of an individual IC (208 – [0036] discloses: “Unless described otherwise, IC dies described herein include one or more IC structures (or, simply, “ICs”) implementing (i.e., configured to perform) certain functionality.”) along the axis is larger than the average pitch of the antenna units.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dogiamis so that the average pitch of the antenna units is a dimension along an axis in the plane, and wherein an average dimension of the individual IC along the axis is larger than the average pitch of the antenna units as taught by Dogiamis-2. This modification would provide an antenna module with the appropriate pitch between the antenna units (see Dogiamis-2, [0080]).
PNG
media_image2.png
528
894
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, the modified Dogiamis teaches the antenna module of claim 1 as addressed above.
Dogiamis (Fig. 1) further teaches the projections of the ICs (120, 122) are in a linear array of the projections, and the antenna units (118) are in a linear array of the antenna units.
The modified Dogiamis does not explicitly teach the two or more subsets include two subsets.
Dogiamis-2 (Fig. 2A) teaches the two or more subsets include two subsets (a subset of ICs 208 and a subset of ICs 210).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dogiamis so that the two or more subsets include two subsets as taught by Dogiamis-2. This modification would provide an antenna module with circuitry to synchronize signals (ICs 208) and baseband circuitry (ICs 210) for the antenna units (see Dogiamis-2, [0092]).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Dogiamis teaches the antenna module of claim 1 as addressed above.
Dogiamis (Fig. 1) further teaches the two or more subsets include four subsets (regarding the two or more subsets, see annotated Fig. 1 in Dogiamis above).
The modified Dogiamis does not teach the projections of the ICs are in a two-dimensional array of the projections, and the antenna units are in a two-dimensional array of the antenna units.
However, Dogiamis (Fig. 6) teaches the projections of the ICs (120, 122) are in a two-dimensional array of the projections. Further, Dogiamis (Figs. 15 and 16) teaches the antenna units (118) are in a two-dimensional array of the antenna units.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dogiamis so that the projections of the ICs are in a two-dimensional array of the projections, and the antenna units are in a two-dimensional array of the antenna units. This modification would provide an antenna module with the desired dimensions such as length and width of the module, and the desired arrangement of the ICs with respect to the antenna units for achieving the most efficient/advantageous way of connecting the ICs to the antenna units.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Dogiamis teaches the antenna module of claim 1 as addressed above.
Dogiamis (Fig. 1) further teaches a plurality of dies (120, 122), wherein individual ICs (120, 122) are on different dies of the plurality of dies ([0047] discloses: “The ICs described herein may be employed in a single IC die”).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Dogiamis teaches the antenna module of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Dogiamis does not teach a plurality of dies, wherein at least one die of the plurality of dies includes two or more ICs of the plurality of ICs.
However, Dogiamis ([0041]) teaches at least one die of the plurality of dies includes two or more ICs of the plurality of ICs ([0041] discloses: “Unless described otherwise, IC dies described herein include one or more IC structures (or, simply, “ICs”) implementing (i.e., configured to perform) certain functionality. In one such example, the term “memory die” may be used to describe a die that includes one or more ICs implementing memory circuitry (e.g., ICs implementing one or more of memory devices, memory arrays, control logic configured to control the memory devices and arrays, etc.)”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dogiamis so that at least one die of the plurality of dies includes two or more ICs of the plurality of ICs. This modification would provide an antenna module with IC dies having the desired functionality (see Dogiamis, [0041]).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Dogiamis teaches the antenna module of claim 6 as addressed above.
The modified Dogiamis does not explicitly teach the two or more ICs are ICs of one of the two or more subsets.
However, Dogiamis (Fig. 1) teaches each of the IC subsets (regarding the IC subsets, see annotated Fig. 1 in Dogiamis above) correspond to a respective group of antenna units (118). Further, Dogiamis ([0041]) teaches at least one die of the plurality of dies includes two or more ICs of the plurality of ICs. One skilled in the art, would know to include two or more ICs of one subset into one die, for more efficient packaging of the antenna units and the corresponding ICs.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dogiamis so that the two or more ICs are ICs of one of the two or more subsets. This modification would provide an antenna module having more efficient packaging of the antenna unis and the corresponding ICs as noted above.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Dogiamis teaches the antenna module of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Dogiamis does not explicitly teach a first die, a second die, and a die-to-die interconnect between the first die and the second die, wherein the first die includes an IC of a first subset of the two or more subsets, and the second die includes an IC of a second subset of the two or more subsets.
Dogiamis-2 (Fig. 7) teaches a first die (208), a second die (210), and a die-to-die interconnect (220) between the first die and the second die, wherein the first die includes an IC of a first subset (subset of ICs 208) of the two or more subsets, and the second die includes an IC of a second subset (subset of ICs 210) of the two or more subsets.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dogiamis so that the antenna module comprises a first die, a second die, and a die-to-die interconnect between the first die and the second die, wherein the first die includes an IC of a first subset of the two or more subsets, and the second die includes an IC of a second subset of the two or more subsets as taught by Dogiamis-2. This modification would provide an antenna module with circuitry to synchronize signals (ICs 208) and baseband circuitry (ICs 210) for the antenna units (see Dogiamis-2, [0092]).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Dogiamis teaches the antenna module of claim 8 as addressed above.
The modified Dogiamis does not explicitly teach the die-to-die interconnect includes a solder bump.
However, Dogiamis-2 (Fig. 2C) teaches die-to-die interconnect which includes a solder bump (236; Dogiamis-2, [0085] discloses that the examples of die-to-die (DTD) interconnects in Figs. 2B-2D apply to both DTD interconnects 218 and 220).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dogiamis so that the die-to-die interconnect includes a solder bump as taught by Dogiamis-2. This modification would provide an antenna module with the appropriate connection between the different dies (e.g., dies 208 and 210 of Fig. 7 in Dogiamis-2), wherein the dies provide the circuitry to synchronize signals (ICs 208) and the baseband circuitry (ICs 210) for the antenna units (see Dogiamis-2, [0092]).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Dogiamis teaches the antenna module of claim 8 as addressed above.
The modified Dogiamis does not explicitly teach the die-to-die interconnect includes a hybrid bonding interconnect.
However, Dogiamis-2 (Fig. 2B) teaches die-to-die interconnect which includes hybrid bonding interconnect (214; Dogiamis-2, [0085] discloses that the examples of DTD interconnects in Figs. 2B-2D apply to both DTD interconnects 218 and 220).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dogiamis so that the die-to-die interconnect includes a hybrid bonding interconnect as taught by Dogiamis-2. This modification would provide an antenna module with the appropriate connection between the different dies (e.g., dies 208 and 210 of Fig. 7 in Dogiamis-2), wherein the dies provide the circuitry to synchronize signals (ICs 208) and the baseband circuitry (ICs 210) for the antenna units (see Dogiamis-2, [0092]).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Dogiamis teaches the antenna module of claim 1 as addressed above.
Dogiamis (Fig. 1) further teaches an individual antenna unit (118) of the plurality of antenna units is an antenna patch ([0090] discloses: “Each of antennas 118 may be of any type, including slot antenna, leaky-wave antenna, patch antenna, stacked patch antenna, horn antenna, and dipole/monopole antenna.”)
Regarding claim 14, the modified Dogiamis teaches the antenna module of claim 1 as addressed above.
Dogiamis (Fig. 1) further teaches the antenna unit support (110) includes a printed circuit board (inherent; [0090] discloses: “Reflector module 106 comprises a substrate 110 having a first side 112 and an opposing second side 114, first side 112 being proximate to transceiver modules 102. A reflectarray 116, including a plurality of antennas 118, is on first side of substrate 110.” It is well-known in the art, that a substrate having RF components disposed on it is described as a printed circuit board).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Dogiamis as applied to claim 8 in view of Elsherbini et al. (US 20220093492 A1, hereinafter Elsherbini).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Dogiamis teaches the antenna module of claim 8 as addressed above.
The modified Dogiamis does not explicitly teach the die-to-die interconnect includes a direct bonding interconnect.
Elsherbini (Abstract; claim 1) teaches direct bonding interconnect (direct bonding region) between a first microelectronic component and a second microelectronic component. One skilled in the art would know that direct bonding interconnect can be used as an interconnect between two IC dies, which are microelectronic components.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dogiamis so that the die-to-die interconnect includes a direct bonding interconnect. This modification would provide electrical connection between the desired conductive regions of the respective dies (see Elsherbini, Abstract).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Dogiamis as applied to claim 1 in view of Mohan et al. (US 20120217625 A1, hereinafter Mohan).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Dogiamis teaches the antenna module of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Dogiamis does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein individual ICs are communicatively coupled to individual antenna units in a one-to-one correspondence.
Mohan (Figs. 11A, 11B) teaches an individual IC (1102) is communicatively coupled to an individual antenna unit (1110) in a one-to-one correspondence.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dogiamis so that individual ICs are communicatively coupled to individual antenna units in a one-to-one correspondence as taught by Mohan. This modification would provide an antenna module wherein the individual antenna units are arranged to wirelessly transmit signals from the corresponding individual integrated circuit by emitting electromagnetic radiation (see Mohan, [0008], lines 10-12).
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thai et al. (US 20190348749 A1, hereinafter Thai) in view of Dogiamis-2 (cited above).
Regarding claim 15, Thai (Fig. 29) discloses an antenna module (151), comprising:
an antenna unit support (100);
an array of antenna units (104-1) over the antenna unit support, the array including a first antenna unit and a second antenna unit (regarding the first antenna unit and the second antenna unit, see annotated Fig. 29 in Thai below);
a first die comprising an integrated circuit (IC) to control the first antenna unit; and
PNG
media_image3.png
520
898
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a second die comprising an IC to control the second antenna unit (regarding the first die and the second die, see annotated Fig. 29 in Thai below).
Thai does not teach the limitations wherein:
a width of the first die or the second die is larger than a distance between the first antenna unit and the second antenna unit,
the first die is at a first distance from the antenna unit support,
the second die is at a second distance from the antenna unit support, and
a projection of the first die onto a plane parallel to the antenna unit support partially overlaps a projection of the second die onto the plane.
Dogiamis-2 (Fig. 2A) teaches an antenna module (100) comprising an antenna unit support (102), an array of antenna units (104) over the antenna unit support, a first die (208) and a second die (210; regarding the first die and the second die, see annotated Fig. 2A in Dogiamis-2 above), wherein a width of the first die is larger than a distance between the first antenna unit and the second antenna unit (regarding the width of the first die and the distance between the first antenna unit and the second antenna unit, see annotated Fig. 2A in Dogiamis-2 above), the first die is at a first distance from the antenna unit support, the second die is at a second distance from the antenna unit support, and a projection of the first die onto a plane parallel to the antenna unit support partially overlaps a projection of the second die onto the plane (regarding the first distance, the second distance, and the projections of the first die and the second die, see annotated Fig. 2A in Dogiamis-2 above).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thai so that a width of the first die or the second die is larger than a distance between the first antenna unit and the second antenna unit, the first die is at a first distance from the antenna unit support, the second die is at a second distance from the antenna unit support, and a projection of the first die onto a plane parallel to the antenna unit support partially overlaps a projection of the second die onto the plane as taught by Dogiamis-2. This modification would provide an antenna module with a smaller footprint due to the vertical stacking of the antenna units, and the first and the second die (see Fig. 2A in Dogiamis-2).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Thai teaches the antenna module of claim 15.
Thai (Fig. 29) further teaches the array (array of antenna units 104-1) further includes a third antenna unit and a fourth antenna unit (regarding the third antenna unit and the fourth antenna unit, see annotated Fig. 29 in Thai above), and the antenna module further includes a third die comprising an IC to control the third antenna unit and a fourth die comprising an IC to control the fourth antenna unit (regarding the third die and the fourth die, see annotated Fig. 29 in Thai above).
Thai does not teach the limitations wherein:
the third die is at a third distance from the antenna unit support,
the fourth die is at a fourth distance from the antenna unit support, and
the projection of the first die onto the plane partially overlaps a projection of the third die onto the plane and a projection of the fourth die onto the plane.
Dogiamis-2 (Fig. 2A) teaches a third die at a third distance from the antenna unit support (102), a fourth die at a fourth distance from the antenna unit support (102), and the projection of the first die onto the plane partially overlaps a projection of the third die onto the plane and a projection of the fourth die onto the plane (regarding the third die, the fourth die, the third distance, the fourth distance, and the projections of the first, the third, and the fourth die, see annotated Fig. 2A in Dogiamis-2 above).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thai so that the third die is at a third distance from the antenna unit support, the fourth die is at a fourth distance from the antenna unit support, and the projection of the first die onto the plane partially overlaps a projection of the third die onto the plane and a projection of the fourth die onto the plane as taught by Dogiamis-2. This modification would provide an antenna module with a smaller footprint due to the vertical stacking of the antenna units, the first die, the second, the third and the fourth die (see Fig. 2A in Dogiamis-2).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Thai teaches the antenna module of claim 15.
Thai (Fig. 29) further teaches a center-to-center distance between the projection of the first die onto the plane and the projection of the second die onto the plane is substantially equal to a center-to-center distance between the first antenna unit and the second antenna unit (regarding the first and the second die, the first and the second antenna unit, and the center-to-center distances, see annotated Fig. 29 in Thai above).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Thai teaches the antenna module of claim 15.
Thai (Fig. 29) further teaches the first antenna unit and the second antenna unit are nearest-neighbor antenna units of the array (regarding the first antenna unit and the second antenna unit, see annotated Fig. 29 in Thai above).
Regarding claim 19, Thai (Figs. 28-29) discloses a communication device (151 – Fig. 28), comprising:
a display (182 – Fig. 28);
a back cover (176 – Fig. 28); and
an antenna module (105 – Fig. 28) between the display and the back cover, the antenna module comprising antenna units (104-1, 104-2 – Fig. 29) and integrated circuits (ICs) (115 – Fig. 29) comprising at least portions of radio frequency transceiver circuitry to control operation of the antenna units ([0092] discloses: “As discussed above, any suitable circuitry may be included in an IC package 115. In some embodiments (e.g., the embodiments of FIGS. 37-39), the IC package 115 may include RF integrated circuits to control the operation of the antenna board 100 (e.g., one RFIC for each antenna patch 104 or stack 103)”),
and an average center-to-center distance between nearest projections of the ICs on a plane parallel to the display is substantially equal to an average center-to-center distance between nearest projections of the antenna units onto the plane (regarding the center-to-center distances, see annotated Fig. 29 in Thai above).
Thai does not disclose the ICs are in two or more layers below a layer with the antenna units.
Dogiamis-2 (Fig. 2A) teaches an antenna module (100) wherein ICs (208, 210) are in two layers (204 and 206) below a layer (202) with antenna units (104).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thai so that the ICs are in two or more layers below a layer with the antenna units as taught by Dogiamis-2. This modification would provide means for packaging a larger number of ICs in the antenna module without increasing the antenna module footprint.
Regarding claim 20, the modified Thai teaches the communication device of claim 19.
The modified Thai does not teach the average center-to-center distance between nearest projections of the antenna units onto the plane is larger than a width of at least one of the ICs.
Thai (Fig. 29) further teaches the average center-to-center distance between nearest projections of the antenna units (104-1) onto the plane is larger than a width of at the ICs (115; regarding the average center-to-center distance and the width of the IC, see annotated Fig. 29 in Thai above; the center-to-center distance equals the sum of the width of the antenna board 100, W_B, and the width of the gap, W_G, wherein this sum is greater than the width of the IC 115, W_IC).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV whose telephone number is (571)272-3467. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00-17:00.
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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at 571-270-7893. 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.
/MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights