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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 06/01/2026 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent 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.
(Examiner recommends, for compact prosecution, to overcome this current rejection the applicant may amend the independent claim 9 to positively recite, for example: the interpixel boundary/frame is raised higher than the adjacent different thickness color pixels, and the second reflection layer is continuously/conformally disposed over the color pixels and the raised boundary/frame, if supported by the specification, claims 16 would benefit from the same type of amendment but in filter/sensing region language, if supported by the specification)
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 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fiore et al. (US 2022/0128408, of record) in view of Song et al. (US 2015/0176804, of record) in view of Williams et al. (US 2021/0255543).
Regarding claim 9, Fiore discloses a multispectral transmission filter array, comprising: a carrier ([0084] discloses: 106, silicon wafer); a first reflection layer ([0084] discloses: 104, bottom mirror), disposing on the carrier (Figure 1b depicts: 104, bottom mirror disposed on 106, silicon wafer via 105, bonding layer); an optical layer ([0084] discloses: 102, phase tuning element; in at least abstract discloses: phase tuning element of each pixel element is configured for a different wavelength response of the pixel element), disposing on the first reflection layer (Figure 1 B depicts: 102, phase tuning element, disposed on 104, bottom mirror, via 103, photo active element), and a second reflection layer (104, top mirror), disposing on the plurality of color pixels (Figure 1b depicts: 104, top mirror, disposed on 102, phase tuning element, that are considered the color pixels).
Fiore fails to disclose a device wherein the first reflection layer is disposed in direct contact with the carrier, the optical layer is disposed in direct contact with the first reflection layer the optical layer includes a plurality of color pixels with difference thickness and interpixel boundary formed between thereof, the second reflection layer is disposed in direct contact with the plurality of color pixels and wherein the second reflection layer has a non-planar surface profile corresponding to different thicknesses of the plurality of color pixels, and wherein spectral differentiation between the adjacent color pixels is achieved without discrete structures configured to provide optical isolation between the adjacent color pixels. Fiore and Williams are related because both disclose optical filters.
Williams teaches a device wherein the first reflection layer is disposed in direct contact with the carrier ([0021] teaches: disposing first mirror layer onto a substrate), the optical layer is disposed in direct contact with the first reflection layer (Claim 34 teaches: depositing an insulating layer on the first mirror layer), the second reflection layer is disposed in direct contact with the plurality of color pixels (in at least abstract and [0021] teaches: second mirror, deposited on insulating layer) and wherein the second reflection layer has a non-planar surface profile corresponding to different thicknesses of the plurality of color pixels ([0018] teaches: a two-dimensional profile of optical wavelengths, wherein the two-dimensional profile may be the an in-plane spatially varying colour profile transmitted through the optical filter, see Figure 1), and wherein spectral differentiation between the adjacent color pixels is achieved without discrete structures configured to provide optical isolation between the adjacent color pixels ([0018] teaches: the profile of remaining thicknesses of the plurality of portions of the insulating layer may produce, when incident light hits the optical filter, a corresponding profile of colours over a 2D area; Examiner notes that this is done using the layer thicknesses and not using optical isolation between the adjacent color pixels). Fiore and Song are related because both disclose optical filters.
Song teaches a device wherein the optical layer includes a plurality of color pixels with difference thickness (Figure 7 depicts: plurality of color pixels: R,G and B, with different thicknesses, L1, L2 and L2; [0073] teaches: thicknesses that satisfy path lengths respectively) and interpixel boundary formed between thereof ([0081] teaches: 50, barrier rib, between 11, first pattern 12, second pattern and 13 third patterns, see Figure 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Fiore to incorporate the teachings of Song and Williams and provide a device wherein the first reflection layer is disposed in direct contact with the carrier, the optical layer is disposed in direct contact with the first reflection layer the optical layer includes a plurality of color pixels with difference thickness and interpixel boundary formed between thereof, the second reflection layer is disposed in direct contact with the plurality of color pixels and wherein the second reflection layer has a non-planar surface profile corresponding to different thicknesses of the plurality of color pixels, and wherein spectral differentiation between the adjacent color pixels is achieved without discrete structures configured to provide optical isolation between the adjacent color pixels. Doing so would allow for improved the adjacent filter/color pixel regions to be more clearly defined and spatially separated during fabrication, thereby improving pattern definition and registration of the multispectral filter array.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Fiore discloses the multispectral transmission filter array according to claim 9.
Fiore fails to disclose a device wherein a thickness of the interpixel boundary is higher than the thickness of the plurality of color pixels. Fiore and Song are related because both disclose optical systems.
Song teaches a device wherein a thickness of the interpixel boundary is higher than the thickness of the plurality of color pixels (Figure 10 depicts: height of 50, barrier rib, higher than the height of R, G and B the plurality of color pixels).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Fiore to incorporate the teachings of Song and provide a device wherein a thickness of the interpixel boundary is higher than the thickness of the plurality of color pixels. Doing so would allow for improved optical isolation between adjacent color pixels, reducing spectral cross talk, thereby improving the overall efficiency and quality of the optical system.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Fiore discloses the multispectral transmission filter array according to claim 9.
Fiore fails to disclose a device wherein the optical layer further comprises a frame around the plurality of color pixels, and a thickness of the frame is higher than that of the plurality of color pixels. Fiore and Song are related because both disclose optical systems.
Song teaches a device wherein the optical layer further comprises a frame around the plurality of color pixels (Figure 14 depicts: 50, barrier rib, as frame around R, G and B, color pixels), and a thickness of the frame is higher than that of the plurality of color pixels (Figure 10 depicts: height of 50, barrier rib, higher than the height of R, G and B the plurality of color pixels).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Fiore to incorporate the teachings of Song and provide disclose a device wherein the optical layer further comprises a frame around the plurality of color pixels, and a thickness of the frame is higher than that of the plurality of color pixels. Doing so would allow for improved optical isolation between adjacent color pixels, reducing spectral cross talk, thereby improving the overall efficiency and quality of the optical system.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fiore et al. (US 2022/0128408, of record) in view of Song et al. (US 2015/0176804, of record) in view of Williams et al. (US 2021/0255543), as applied to claim 9 above, in view of Kim et al. (US 2022/0342130, of record).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Fiore discloses the multispectral transmission filter array according to claim 9.
Fiore fails to disclose a device wherein a thickness of the first reflection layer and second reflection are between 18-24 nm. Fiore and Kim are related because both disclose optical devices.
Kim teaches a device wherein a thickness of the first reflection layer and second reflection are between 18-24 nm (Claim 5 teaches: first and second reflection layers have a thickness of 10 nm to 80 nm, which includes the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Fiore to incorporate the teachings of Kim and provide a device wherein a thickness of the first reflection layer and second reflection are between 18-24 nm. Doing so would allow for optimization of mirror reflectivity and cavity resonance characteristics, thereby improving spectral selectivity and transmission efficiency of the optical device.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fiore et al. (US 2022/0128408, of record) in view of Song et al. (US 2015/0176804, of record) in view of Williams et al. (US 2021/0255543), as applied to claim 9 above, in view of Jun (US 2010/0065897, of record).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Fiore discloses the multispectral transmission filter array according to claim 9.
Fiore fails to disclose a device wherein a thickness of the plurality of color pixels are inversely to wavelength. Fiore and Jun are related because both disclose optical systems.
Jun teaches a device wherein a thickness of the plurality of color pixels are inversely to wavelength ([0034] teaches: height of color filters inversely proportional to the wavelength).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Fiore to incorporate the teachings of Jun and provide a device wherein a thickness of the plurality of color pixels are inversely to wavelength. Doing so would allow for predictable tuning of spectral response and color separation across different wavelength bands, thereby improving the overall efficiency and performance of the optical system.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fiore et al. (US 2022/0128408, of record) in view of Song et al. (US 2015/0176804, of record) in view of Williams et al. (US 2021/0255543), as applied to claim 9 above, in view of Wang (US 2010/0181556, of record).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Fiore discloses the multispectral transmission filter array according to claim 9, and a color filter range of the multispectral transmission filter array is between 450 to 850 nm (Song: [0053] teaches: red light, wavelengths 600-670 nm, green light, wavelengths 500-570 nm; [0058] teaches: blue light, wavelengths 420-480 nm; therefore the filter covers ranges between 420-670; Which overlaps with the claimed range; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 9, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Fiore fails to disclose a device wherein the thicknesses of the plurality of color pixels are within a range of from 92 to 228 nm. Fiore and Wang are related because both disclose optical systems.
Wang teaches a device wherein the thicknesses of the plurality of color pixels are within a range of from 92 to 228 nm ([0101] teaches: ETL thickness, considered the color pixel, of 160 nm, which falls within the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Fiore to incorporate the teachings of Wang and provide teaches a device wherein the thicknesses of the plurality of color pixels are within a range of from 92 to 228 nm. Doing so would allow for a reasonably high efficiency for colors to be obtained (Wang: 0101), thereby improving the overall efficiency and performance of the optical system.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fiore et al. (US 2022/0128408, of record) in view of Song et al. (US 2015/0176804, of record) in view of Williams et al. (US 2021/0255543), as applied to claim 9 above, in view of You et al. (US 2017/0098752) in view of Kress et al. (US 2021/0405255, of record).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Fiore discloses the multispectral transmission filter array according to claim 9.
Fiore fails to disclose a device wherein the optical layer is selected from PMMA, SiO2 and the carrier is selected from SiO2, Si3N4. Fiore and You are related because both disclose optical systems.
You teaches a device wherein the optical layer is selected from PMMA, SiO2 ([0017] teaches: cavity structure is silicone dioxide).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Fiore to incorporate the teachings of You and provide a device wherein the optical layer is selected from PMMA, SiO2. Doing so would allow for desired optical and structural characteristics, therefore improving the overall functionality and quality of the optical system.
Kress teaches a device wherein the carrier is selected from SiO2, Si3N4 ([0072] teaches: silicon dioxide substrate).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Fiore to incorporate the teachings of Kress and provide a device wherein the carrier is selected from SiO2, Si3N4. Doing so would allow for desired optical and structural characteristics, therefore improving the overall functionality and quality of the optical system.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fiore et al. (US 2022/0128408, of record) in view of Tisserand et al. (US 2024/0102861, of record) in view of Williams et al. (US 2021/0255543) in view of Song et al. (US 2015/0176804, of record).
Regarding claim 16, Fiore discloses a multispectral transmission filter structure, comprising: a carrier ([0084] discloses: 106, silicon wafer); a first transmission filter (Figure 1b depicts: a single pixel sensor array on a wafer) including: a first bottom reflection layer ([0084] discloses: 104, bottom mirror); and a first top reflection layer ([0084] discloses: 101, top mirror) disposing on the first optical structure (Figure 1b depicts: 101, top mirror, disposed on 102, phase tuning element, considered the first optical structure); and a second transmission filter (Figure 1a depicts: multi-pixel sensor array) adjacent to the first filter sensor (Figure 1a depicts: multi-pixel sensor array, with multiple filter sensors including adjacent to a first filter denoted as lambda 1), including: a second bottom reflection layer ([0084] discloses: 104, bottom mirror; Examiner notes that each pixel sensor array is considered to be designed as in Figure 1b); and a second top reflection layer ([0084] discloses: 101, top mirror) disposing on the second optical structure (Examiner notes that the second top reflection layer of lambda 2 would be disposed on top of its respective phase tuning element).
Fiore fails to disclose a device having a first sensing region and a second sensing region: with a first bottom reflection layer disposed in direct contact with first sensing region; a first optical structure includes a first recess with a first depth; a first top reflection layer, disposed in direction contact with the first optical structure; a second transmission filter adjacent to the first transmission filter; a second bottom reflection layer disposing on the second sensing region; a second optical structure includes a second recess with a second depth; a second top reflection layer, disposed in direct contact with the second optical structure; wherein the first depth and the second depth are different; and the first top reflection layer and the second top reflection layer are located at different vertical heights relative to the carrier, such that the spectral responses of the first transmission filter and the second transmission filter are differentiated at the respective sensing regions without discrete structures configured to optically isolate the sensing regions. Fiore and Tisserand are related because both disclose optical systems.
Tisserand teaches a device having a first sensing region and a second sensing region: with a first bottom reflection layer disposing on the first sensing region; and a second bottom reflection layer disposing on the second sensing region ([0041] teaches 100, image sensor; Figure 1A depicts: 120, microlens array, disposed on sensing regions; Examiner notes that the sensor formed by array of micropixels of Figure 1B, would have a respective image sensor “area” corresponding to each microlens array corresponding to each spectral band, see [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Fiore to incorporate the teachings of Tisserand and provide a device having a first sensing region and a second sensing region: with a first bottom reflection layer disposing on the first sensing region; and a second bottom reflection layer disposing on the second sensing region. Doing so would allow for better spectral selectivity and sensor performance, thereby improving overall efficiency and quality of the optical system.
Williams teaches a first bottom reflection layer disposed in direct contact with first sensing region ([0070] teaches: substrate may be an image sensor; [0021] teaches: disposing first mirror layer onto a substrate; therefore, when applied to the first and second sensing regions of Tisserand, the first mirror/bottom reflection layer is disposed directly on the respective first and second sensing regions); a first top reflection layer, disposed in direction contact with the first optical structure (Claim 34 teaches: depositing an insulating layer on the first mirror layer); a second transmission filter adjacent to the first transmission filter; a second transmission filter adjacent to the first transmission filter (Figure 1 depicts: a plurality of portions of the insulating layer having different remaining thicknesses, wherein adjacent portions correspond to different transmission filters); a second top reflection layer, disposed in direct contact with the second optical structure (in at least abstract and [0021] teaches: second mirror, deposited on insulating layer; Examiner notes that the different parts of the insulating layer are consider different optical structures for each mirror deposited); and the first top reflection layer and the second top reflection layer are located at different vertical heights relative to the carrier (Figure 1 depicts: the first top reflection layer and the second top reflection layer are located at different vertical heights relative to the carrier), such that the spectral responses of the first transmission filter and the second transmission filter are differentiated at the respective sensing regions without discrete structures configured to optically isolate the sensing regions ([0018] teaches: the profile of remaining thicknesses of the plurality of portions of the insulating layer may produce, when incident light hits the optical filter, a corresponding profile of colours over a 2D area; Examiner notes that this is done using the layer thicknesses and not using optical isolation between the adjacent color pixels).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fiore in view of Williams and provide a first bottom reflection layer disposed in direct contact with first sensing region; a first top reflection layer, disposed in direction contact with the first optical structure; a second transmission filter adjacent to the first transmission filter; a second transmission filter adjacent to the first transmission filter; a second top reflection layer, disposed in direct contact with the second optical structure; and the first top reflection layer and the second top reflection layer are located at different vertical heights relative to the carrier, such that the spectral responses of the first transmission filter and the second transmission filter are differentiated at the respective sensing regions without discrete structures configured to optically isolate the sensing regions. Doing so would allow for improved the adjacent filter/color pixel regions to be more clearly defined and spatially separated during fabrication, thereby improving pattern definition and registration of the multispectral filter array.
Fiore and Song are related because both disclose optical systems.
Song teaches a device with a first optical structure includes a first recess with a first depth (Figure 9 depicts: 40, optical path adjuster, recess from G); a second optical structure includes a second recess with a second depth (Figure 9 depict: 40, optical path adjuster, recess from B); wherein the first depth and the second depth are different (Figure 9 depicts: 40, optical path adjuster, as different depths for R, G and B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Fiore to incorporate the teachings of Song and provide a device with a first optical structure includes a first recess with a first depth; a second optical structure includes a second recess with a second depth; wherein the first depth and the second depth are different. Doing so would allow for improved optical isolation between adjacent color pixels, reducing spectral cross talk, thereby improving the overall efficiency and quality of the optical system.
Regarding claim 17, the modified Fiore discloses the multispectral transmission filter structure according to claim 16.
Fiore fails to disclose a device wherein the first optical structure and the second optical structure are connected each other and formed as a wall surrounding the first transmission filter and the second transmission filter. Fiore and Song are related because both disclose optical systems.
Song teaches a device wherein the first optical structure and the second optical structure are connected each other and formed as a wall surrounding the first transmission filter and the second transmission filter (Figure 13 depicts: each pattern 11-13, with its own optical structure, defining the particular color transmission filter R, G or B, and the optical structure forming the walls of each of the patterns 11-13, and necessarily defining the walls of each respective transmission filter).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Fiore to incorporate the teachings of Song and provide a device wherein the first optical structure and the second optical structure are connected each other and formed as a wall surrounding the first transmission filter and the second transmission filter. Doing so would allow for improved optical isolation between adjacent color pixels, reducing spectral cross talk, thereby improving the overall efficiency and quality of the optical system.
Regarding claim 18, the modified Fiore discloses the multispectral transmission filter structure according to claim 16, wherein the first optical structure receives a first wavelength (Song: in at least abstract teaches: red, green wavelength bands; [0014] discloses: blue wavelength band; Examiner notes that the red wavelength range is considered the first wavelength) the second optical structure receives a second wavelength (Song: Examiner notes that the red wavelength range is considered the second wavelength), the first wavelength is higher than the second wavelength (Song: Examiner notes that red light has a longer wavelength than blue and green light, therefore considered to be higher), the second depth is deeper than the first depth (Song: Figure 1 depicts: depth of B, deeper than depth of G) and a color filter range of the multispectral transmission filter structure is between 450 to 850nm (Song: [0053] teaches: red light, wavelengths 600-670 nm, green light, wavelengths 500-570 nm; [0058] teaches: blue light, wavelengths 420-480 nm; therefore the filter filters light between the ranges 450-850).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fiore et al. (US 2022/0128408, of record) in view of Tisserand et al. (US 2024/0102861, of record) in view of Williams et al. (US 2021/0255543) in view of Song et al. (US 2015/0176804, of record), as applied to claim 18 above, in view of Kim et al. (US 2022/0342130, of record).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Fiore discloses the multispectral transmission filter structure according to claim 18.
Fiore fails to disclose a device wherein a thickness of the first top and second top reflection layers, and the second bottom and second bottom reflection layers are between 18-24 nm. Fiore and Kim are related because both disclose optical devices.
Kim teaches a device wherein a thickness of the first reflection layer and second reflection are between 18-24 nm (Claim 5 teaches: first and second reflection layers have a thickness of 10 nm to 80 nm, which includes the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Fiore to incorporate the teachings of Kim and provide a device wherein a thickness of the first reflection layer and second reflection are between 18-24 nm. Doing so would allow for optimization of mirror reflectivity and cavity resonance characteristics, thereby improving spectral selectivity and transmission efficiency of the optical device.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fiore et al. (US 2022/0128408, of record) in view of Tisserand et al. (US 2024/0102861, of record) in view of Williams et al. (US 2021/0255543) in view of Song et al. (US 2015/0176804, of record), as applied to claim 16 above, in view of You et al. (US 2017/0098752, of record) in view of Kress et al. (US 2021/0405255, of record).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Fiore discloses the multispectral transmission filter structure according to claim 16, wherein the first top and second top reflection layers are selected form Ag and DBR and the second bottom and second bottom reflection layers are selected form DBR and Ag ([0087] discloses: mirrors with metal layers such as Ag).
Fiore fails to disclose wherein the first optical structure and the second optical structure are selected form PMMA, SiO2, the carrier is selected form SiO2, Si3N4. Fiore and You are related because both disclose optical systems.
You teaches a device wherein the optical structure is selected from PMMA, SiO2 ([0017] teaches: cavity structure is silicone dioxide; Examiner notes that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Fiore to incorporate the teachings of You and provide a device wherein the optical structure is selected from PMMA, SiO2. Doing so would allow for desired optical and structural characteristics, therefore improving the overall functionality and quality of the optical system.
Kress teaches a device wherein the carrier is selected from SiO2, Si3N4 ([0072] teaches: silicon dioxide substrate).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Fiore to incorporate the teachings of Kress and provide a device wherein the carrier is selected from SiO2, Si3N4. Doing so would allow for desired optical and structural characteristics, therefore improving the overall functionality and quality of the optical system.
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 John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 4:30 -10/12-6:30 (CT).
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 at (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.
John Sipes
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights