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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed June 8, 2026. Claims 1-22 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows. Claims 6, 7, and 10 were previously withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 8, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claims 1, 19, and 20, applicant arguments, on pages 8-11 of the Remarks, that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose all of the limitations of the claims, as newly amended, have been fully considered and are appreciated.
However, with respect to claim 1, applicant argues that the reflector is not centered about the first axis in the Baeg et al. reference. However, as set forth below, the reflector 250, including beam splitter 252, appears to be centered about the central axis (see e.g. Figure 5 where the reflector 250 appears to be substantially symmetric with respect to the axis in a top view). Applicant further argues that Baeg et al. fails to disclose “a receiver, wherein light received through the window is reflected by the reflector to the receiver, and wherein the receiver is stationary relative to the housing.” However, as set forth below, Tanaka et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 19):a receiver 20 (denoted “photodiode”, see e.g. paragraph [0207]), wherein light received through the window 5 (denoted “light transmission plate”, see e.g. paragraph [0068]) is reflected by the reflector 841 (denoted ‘deflection member”, see e.g. paragraph [0208]) to the receiver 20, and wherein the receiver 20 is stationary relative to the housing 3 (denoted “casing”, see e.g. paragraph [0056] and note that the element 20 in Figure 19 is not attached to moving pieces).
With respect to claim 19, applicant argues that the previously applied prior art references fail to disclose “receiving a return signal at the reflector, wherein the reflector is operable to direct the return signal to a receiver.” However, as set forth below Tanaka et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 19): receiving a return signal at the reflector 841 (denoted ‘deflection member”, see e.g. paragraph [0208]), wherein the reflector 841 is operable to direct the return signal to a receiver 20 (denoted “photodiode”, see e.g. paragraph [0207]).
With respect to claim 20, applicant argues that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose “wherein the reflector includes a reflector surface, and wherein the reflector surface is centered about the first axis.” However, as set forth below, Tanaka et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 19): wherein the reflector 841 includes a reflector surface 841a, and wherein the reflector surface 841a is centered about the first axis (see e.g. Figure 19).
Therefore claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11-15, and 17-22 are rejected, as set forth below.
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, 2, 9, 11-15, 17, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baeg et al. (US 2014/0111812 A1) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2009/0002678 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Baeg et al. discloses a lidar system (denoted “3D scanning system”, see e.g. paragraph [0013]), comprising (see e.g. Figures 1-4):
a housing (i.e. including first case 111, second case 121, ring-shaped stator 131, cover 210, see e.g. paragraphs [0054]-[0057]) and Figure 3);
a window 121a, 122a (denoted “first and second light emitting holes”, see e.g. Figures 1-4 and paragraph [0058]) disposed in the housing (i.e. including 111, 121, 131, 210 where the windows are in element 210, see e.g. paragraph [0058] and Figures 1-4), wherein the window 121a, 122a allows light of at least a selected wavelength to pass between an interior of the housing and an exterior of the housing (see e.g. Figures 1-4 and paragraph [0058] where it is noted that the first and second light emitting holes 121a, 122 emit pulsed laser light from light source 120);
a scanning mechanism (see e.g. paragraph [0054] for scanning system), including:
a hollow-core motor 130 (denoted “hollow shaft motor”, see e.g. paragraph [0054] and Figures 1-4), where in the hollow-core motor rotates about a first axis (see e.g. paragraph [0054] for hollow-core motor driving rotating part); and
a reflector 250 (denoted “light splitting module”, see e.g. paragraph [0054] and Figures 1-4), wherein the motor is operational to spin the reflector about a first axis (see e.g. paragraph [0054] and note that the reflector is part of the “rotating part 200” of the scanning system), wherein the reflector is centered about the first axis (see e.g. Figure 5, where the reflector 250, including 252 appears to be substantially centered around the first axis from a top view);
a light source 122 (denoted “light emission unit”, see e.g. paragraph [0056] and Figure 4), wherein the light source 122 produces light (see e.g. paragraph [0056] for light emission), wherein the light source 122 is configured to direct the light along or adjacent to the first axis to the reflector 250 (see e.g. Figure 4 and paragraphs [0056], [0059] and note the light emission is upward along an axis at least parallel to an axis of the reflector 250), and wherein the light from the light source 122 is reflected by the reflector 250 through the window 121a, 122a (see e.g. Figures 1-4 and paragraph [0063] for splitting of light and directing toward windows 121a, 122a), along a line that intersects the reflector 250 (see e.g. Figures 1-6 and note that the light will intersect the reflector since the reflector is three dimensional).
Baeg et al. fails to disclose
a receiver, wherein light received through the window is reflected by the reflector to the receiver, and wherein the receiver is stationary relative to the housing.
However, Tanaka et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 19):
a receiver 20 (denoted “photodiode”, see e.g. paragraph [0207]), wherein light received through the window 5 (denoted “light transmission plate”, see e.g. paragraph [0068]) is reflected by the reflector 841 (denoted ‘deflection member”, see e.g. paragraph [0208]) to the receiver 20, and wherein the receiver 20 is stationary relative to the housing 3 (denoted “casing”, see e.g. paragraph [0056] and note that the element 20 in Figure 19 is not attached to moving pieces).
Given the teachings of Tanaka et al., 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 device of Baeg et al. with a receiver, wherein light received through the window is reflected by the reflector to the receiver, and wherein the receiver is stationary relative to the housing.
Providing the receiver in a stationary position with respect to the scanning mirror will allow for an accurate image to be obtained.
In regard to claim 2, Baeg et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the housing (i.e. including 111, 121, 131, 210) includes an endcap 210 (denoted “cover”, see e.g. paragraph [0054] and Figures 1-4), and wherein the window 121a, 122a is disposed in the endcap 210 (see e.g. paragraph [0058 and Figures 1-4).
In regard to claim 9, Baeg et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the light produced by the light source 122 and directed along or adjacent to the first axis passes through a center portion of the hollow-core motor 130 (see e.g. Figure 4 and paragraph [0059]).
In regard to claim 11, Baeg et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the reflector 250 includes:
a cube 252 of glass (denoted “beam splitter”, see e.g. paragraph [0063]) or transparent material (see e.g. Figures 5 and 6 and paragraph [0063] and note that element 252 transmits light and must at least be transparent to those wavelengths); and
a reflector surface disposed within the cube of glass or transparent material 252 (see e.g. paragraph [0063] and note that a beam splitter inherently has a reflective surface in order to split the light).
In regard to claim 12, Baeg et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the reflector includes first and second cubes of glass or transparent material, wherein the first cube includes a first reflector to direct light along a first line of sight relative to the first axis, and wherein the second cube includes a second reflector to direct light along a second line of sight relative to the first axis.
However, Baeg et al. does disclose
a first cube 252 of glass (denoted “beam splitter”, see e.g. paragraph [0063]) or transparent material (see e.g. Figures 5 and 6 and paragraph [0063] and note that element 252 transmits light and must at least be transparent to those wavelengths) coaxial with the emitted light. Baeg et al. further discloses reflectors 253a,b for directing light along different paths (see e.g. paragraph [0063] and Figures 5-6). One of ordinary skill would recognize a second cube with a second reflector is an art recognized equivalent of the reflectors mirrors 253a,b.
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 device of Baeg et al. with wherein the reflector includes first and second cubes of glass or transparent material, wherein the first cube includes a first reflector to direct light along a first line of sight relative to the first axis, and wherein the second cube includes a second reflector to direct light along a second line of sight relative to the first axis.
Providing a beam splitting cube as an art recognized equivalent component would allow light to be directed along a desired direction.
In regard to claim 13, Baeg et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 12 above, and
wherein, relative to the first axis, the first line of sight is radially offset from the second line of sight (see e.g. Figure 5 and note that the light path is a least radially offset from the center axis).
In regard to claim 14, Baeg et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 12 above, and
wherein the first reflector 252 reflects light of at least a first wavelength, and wherein the second reflector 253a or b reflects light of at least a second wavelength (see e.g. paragraph [0063] and Figure 4 and note that the first reflector will reflect both wavelengths and the second will at least reflect the second wavelength).
In regard to claim 15, Baeg et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 12 above, and
wherein the reflector 252 reflects light of a first initial polarization, and wherein the second reflector 253a or b reflects light of a second initial polarization (see e.g. paragraph [0063] and Figure 4 and note that both polarizations are capable of being reflected by both reflectors).
In regard to claim 17, Baeg et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, and
wherein the cube 252 of glass or transparent material is disposed symmetrically about the first axis (see e.g. Figure 5 where the cube is in the center of the device).
In regard to claim 21, Baeg et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the reflector 252 includes a first reflector surface that is intersected by the first axis and a second reflector surface that is intersected by the first axis (see e.g. Figure 6 and note that since the cube is placed on the axis with the sides at an angle, at least two surfaces will intersect the first axis).
In regard to claim 22, Baeg et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the reflector incorporates a corrective optic.
However, Tanaka et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 19):
wherein the reflector 841 incorporates a corrective optic 62 (denoted “collecting lens”, see e.g. paragraph [0067]).
Given the teachings of Tanaka et al., 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 device of Baeg et al. with wherein the reflector incorporates a corrective optic.
Including additional optical components allows for directing light towards a specific target.
Claims 3-5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baeg et al. (US 2014/0111812 A1) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2009/0002678 A1) and further in view of Nootz et al. (US 2022/0326356 A1).
In regard to claim 3, Baeg et al., in view of Tanaka et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 2 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the window is cylindrical in form and protrudes from the endcap, and wherein the window includes a lateral transmissive portion.
However, Nootz et al. discloses
wherein the window 14 (denoted “first transparent portion”, see e.g. paragraph [0039] and Figure 2) is cylindrical in form (see e.g. paragraph [0039] for cylindrical shape) and protrudes from the endcap 50 (denoted “first cylindrical portion”, see e.g. paragraph [0039] and Figure 2), and wherein the window 14 includes a lateral transmissive portion (see e.g. Figure 2 and note the window extends laterally).
Given the teachings of Nootz et al., 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 device of Baeg et al., in view of Tanaka et al., with wherein the window is cylindrical in form and protrudes from the endcap, and wherein the window includes a lateral transmissive portion.
Providing a cylindrical window allows for a larger range of viewing angles in the device.
In regard to claim 4, Baeg et al., in view of Tanaka et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 3 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the window defines an interior volume in which the reflector is received.
However, Nootz et al. does disclose an interior volume in which a scanner 88 is received (see e.g. paragraph [0046] and Figures 2-3).
Given the teachings of Nootz et al., 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 device of Baeg et al., in view of Tanaka et al., with wherein the window defines an interior volume in which the reflector is received.
Providing the scanner in a volume defined by the transmissive portion/window, allows light to be directed outward from the director through the transmission portion for detection of objects.
In regard to claim 5, Baeg et al., in view of Tanaka et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 4 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the window enables a full 360° field of view about the first axis.
However, Nootz et al. discloses
wherein the window 14 enables a full 360° field of view about the first axis (see e.g. paragraph [0046] where a scanning angle of 360° is noted).
Given the teachings of Nootz et al., 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 device of Baeg et al., in view of Tanaka et al., with wherein the window enables a full 360° field of view about the first axis.
Providing a 360° field of view or scanning range allows objects to be detected in a larger field of view.
In regard to claim 18, Baeg et al., in view of Tanaka et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the housing is a submersible housing, wherein the light source and the reflector are disposed within the submersible housing, and wherein the submersible housing is operatively connected to a control system by an intermediate member.
However, Nootz et al. discloses using the lidar device underwater (see e.g. paragraph [0038] and note that if the device is configured for underwater use the housing is considered submersible). It is further noted that the Baeg et al. discloses use of a control board (see e.g. paragraph [0035]).
Given the teachings of Nootz et al., 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 device of Baeg et al., in view of Tanaka et al., with wherein the housing is a submersible housing, wherein the light source and the reflector are disposed within the submersible housing, and wherein the submersible housing is operatively connected to a control system by an intermediate member.
Providing the scanning configuration in submersible housing would allow the device to be usable in underwater applications. Further connection of the device to a control board would provide a means for controlling the scanner.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baeg et al. (US 2014/0111812 A1) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2009/0002678 A1) in view of Nootz et al. (US 2022/0326356 A1) and further in view of Yao et al. (CN 110208818).
In regard to claim 8, Baeg et al., in view of Tanaka et al. and Nootz et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 5 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the reflector directs a first component of the light from the light source within the 360° field of view within a plane that is perpendicular to the first axis, and wherein the reflector passes a second component of the light from the light source along a line that is parallel to the first axis through an end surface of the window.
However, Yao et al. discloses a housing with a cap that has a front transmission window 1 and a lateral window 3 (see e.g. page 6, last three paragraphs of the translation). One of ordinary skill would recognize incorporating the configuration of Baeg et al., in view of Tanaka et al. and Nootz et al., into a device with more transmission windows would allow detection of objects in a larger field of view.
Given the teachings of Yao et al., 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 device of Baeg et al., in view of Nootz et al., with wherein the reflector directs a first component of the light from the light source within the 360° field of view within a plane that is perpendicular to the first axis, and wherein the reflector passes a second component of the light from the light source along a line that is parallel to the first axis through an end surface of the window.
By using an additional forward light path, a larger field of view may be obtained by the device.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nootz et al. (US 2022/0326356 A1) in view of Baeg et al. (US 2014/0111812 A1).
In regard to claim 19, Nootz et al. discloses a method for scanning an underwater scene (see e.g. paragraph [0038] and note that if the device is configured for underwater use), comprising:
providing a submersible housing, the submersible housing including (see e.g. paragraph [0038] and note that if the device is configured for underwater use the housing is considered submersible):
a window 14 (denoted “first transparent portion”, see e.g. paragraph [0039] and Figure 2); and
a scanning mechanism 88 (see e.g. Figures 2-4 and paragraph [0046]).
Nootz et al. fails to disclose
the scanning mechanism including a hollow core motor and a reflector;
operating the motor to rotate the reflector about a first axis; and
passing a beam of light through the hollow core motor and to the reflector to form an output beam, wherein the reflector is operable to scan the output beam over an area within a first field of view;
receiving a return signal at the reflector, wherein the reflector is operable to direct the return signal to a receiver.
However, Baeg et al. discloses
the scanning mechanism (see e.g. paragraph [0054] for scanning system) including a hollow core motor 130 (denoted “hollow shaft motor”, see e.g. paragraph [0054] and Figures 1-4) and a reflector 250 (denoted “light splitting module”, see e.g. paragraph [0054] and Figures 1-4);
operating the motor 130 to rotate the reflector 250 about a first axis (see e.g. paragraph [0054] and note that the reflector is part of the “rotating part 200” of the scanning system); and
passing a beam of light through the hollow core motor 130 and to the reflector 250 to form an output beam (see e.g. Figure 4 and paragraph [0059]), wherein the reflector 250 is operable to scan the output beam over an area within a first field of view (see e.g. paragraph [0059] and note the rotation of the reflector 250 will define a field of view).
Given the teachings of Baeg et al., 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 device of Nootz et al. with the scanning mechanism including a hollow core motor and a reflector; operating the motor to rotate the reflector about a first axis; and passing a beam of light through the hollow core motor and to the reflector, wherein the reflector is operable to scan an area within a first field of view.
Providing a rotating scanner and hollow core motor to operate the scanner allows the beam to traverse the housing a reach the scanner and to scan a larger field of view.
Nootz et al., in view of Baeg et al., fails to disclose
receiving a return signal at the reflector, wherein the reflector is operable to direct the return signal to a receiver.
However, Tanaka et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 19):
receiving a return signal at the reflector 841 (denoted ‘deflection member”, see e.g. paragraph [0208]), wherein the reflector 841 is operable to direct the return signal to a receiver 20 (denoted “photodiode”, see e.g. paragraph [0207]).
Given the teachings of Tanaka et al., 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 device of Nootz et al., in view of Baeg et al., with receiving a return signal at the reflector, wherein the reflector is operable to direct the return signal to a receiver.
Doing so would allow a light path to be used for input and output beams, thus allowing the device to have less components.
In regard to claim 20, Nootz et al. discloses a system 10 (denoted “imaging system”, see e.g. paragraph [0038]), comprising (see e.g. Figures 1-4):
a vehicle (see e.g. paragraph [0038] for underwater vehicle);
a lidar system (see e.g. paragraphs [0003], [0053] for lidar), the lidar system including (see e.g. Figures 1-4):
a submersible housing, the submersible housing including (see e.g. paragraph [0038] and note that if the device is configured for underwater use the housing is considered submersible):
a light source 18 (see e.g. paragraph [0036]), wherein the light source 18 produces a beam of light 20 that is directed along a first axis (see e.g. paragraph [0036] and Figure 2 for light 20 being emitted along an axis);
a window 14 (denoted “first transparent portion”, see e.g. paragraph [0039] and Figure 2).
Nootz et al. fails to disclose
a hollow core motor;
a reflector, wherein the reflector is joined to the hollow core motor and is rotated about the first axis, wherein the reflector directs light received from the light source across a first field of view,
wherein the reflector includes a reflector surface, and wherein the reflector surface is centered about the first axis.
However, Baeg et al. discloses
a hollow core motor 130 (denoted “hollow shaft motor”, see e.g. paragraph [0054] and Figures 1-4);
a reflector 250 (denoted “light splitting module”, see e.g. paragraph [0054] and Figures 1-4), wherein the reflector 250 is joined to the hollow core motor 130 and is rotated about the first axis see e.g. paragraph [0054] and note that the reflector is part of the “rotating part 200” of the scanning system), wherein the reflector 250 directs light received from the light source 122 (denoted “light emission unit”, see e.g. paragraph [0056] and Figure 4) across a first field of view (see e.g. Figures 1-4 and paragraph [0059] and note that the field of view will be based on the range of rotation of the reflector/rotating portion).
Given the teachings of Baeg et al., 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 device of Baeg et al. with a hollow core motor; a reflector, wherein the reflector is joined to the hollow core motor and is rotated about the first axis, wherein the reflector directs light received from the light source across a first field of view.
Providing a rotating scanner and hollow core motor to operate the scanner allows the beam to traverse the housing a reach the scanner and to scan a larger field of view.
Nootz et al., in view of Baeg et al., fails to disclose
wherein the reflector includes a reflector surface, and wherein the reflector surface is centered about the first axis.
However, Tanaka et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 19):
wherein the reflector 841 includes a reflector surface 841a, and wherein the reflector surface 841a is centered about the first axis (see e.g. Figure 19).
Given the teachings of Tanaka et al., 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 device of Nootz et al., in view of Baeg et al., with wherein the reflector includes a reflector surface, and wherein the reflector surface is centered about the first axis.
Providing the scanner to be centered around the axis would allow for the scanner to be predictably used to scan a specific area.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
In regard to claim 16, the closest prior art references fail to disclose, either singly or in combination, all of the limitations of claim 16, including the limitations, “wherein the reflector includes: a first reflector surface, wherein the reflector surface transmits light of a first polarization and reflects light of a second polarization, wherein the first reflector surface is disposed along and at an angle to the first axis, and wherein a first side of the first reflector surface facing the light source defines a first field of view; a second reflector surface, wherein the second reflector surface is disposed on a side of the first reflector surface opposite the light source and perpendicular to the first axis; and a quarter wave plate, wherein the quarter wave plate is between the first reflector surface and the second reflector surface, wherein light of the second polarization is passed by the first reflector surface, passed a first time through the quarter wave plate, reflected by the second reflector surface, passed a second time through the quarter wave plate, thereby converting the light reflected by the second reflector surface to the second polarization, and reflected by a second side of the first reflector surface facing the second reflector, wherein the second side of the reflector defines a second field of view.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights