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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art document(s) submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 02/20/2026 have all been considered and made of record (Note the attached copy of form PTO-892).
Response to Amendment
Applicant's Amendment filed 12/10/2025 has been fully considered and entered.
The objection to the drawings, which were set forth in the Office Action mailed 9/11/2025, has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s Amendment.
The original objections to the claims, which were set forth in the Office Action mailed 9/11/2025, have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s Amendment, however, new objections are placed forth. See section below for details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 6: “consume an electricity” should instead state “consume
Claims 7-8, line 1 of each: It is recommended to add a colon (:) after “comprising”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 and 16 recite “the glass substrate being made of glass except glass epoxy” in lines 3-4. The specification does not provide support for this limitation since it does not, explicitly or implicitly, exclude or except glass epoxy as a choice of glass material. Claims 2-8 and 12-15 are rejected due to their ultimate dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verdiell in US Patent 6,252,726 (hereinafter "Verdiell") in view of Shen et al. in US 20230268249 A1 (hereinafter "Shen") which claims foreign priority to EP 4235244 B1 filed on February 24, 2022 in English and appears substantially similar to Shen.
Regarding claim 1, Verdiell discloses an optical module comprising:
a substrate (mid-piece 240) having a first surface (the surface of 240 facing 255 in Fig. 2), a second surface opposite to the first surface (the surface of 240 facing 225 in Fig. 2), and a via hole connecting the first surface and the second surface to each other (see Col. 5 lines 31-43);
an optical element (optical component 255 is interpreted as the optical element) mounted on the first surface of the substrate (the surface of 240 facing 255 in Fig. 2) and joined to the via hole of the substrate (optical element 255 is joined to mid-piece 240, and the vias, by heat spreader 250), the optical element being configured to consume an electricity (optical element 255 necessarily requires consumption of electricity, in order to function as a laser diode for example; see Col. 5 lines 17-18) and perform at least one of an input and an output of an optical signal (optical element 255 necessarily outputs a light signal, in order to function as the exemplary laser diode; see Col. 5 lines 17-18);
a temperature control element (Peltier cooler 225 in Fig. 2 is interpreted as the temperature control element; see also Col. 5 lines 9-10 and 48-49) mounted on the second surface of the substrate (225 is joined to the surface of 240 facing 225 via ) and joined to the via hole of the substrate (the vias and the Peltier cooler 225 are at least thermally joined; see also Col. 5 lines 60-61), the temperature control element being configured to regulate a temperature of the optical element (Peltier cooler 225 necessarily forces a temperature change which in turn necessarily regulates the temperature of the optical element 255; see Col. 5 lines 51-53); and
a first housing (the combination of 230, 242, 270, and 275 as seen in Fig. 2 is interpreted as the first housing) attached to the first surface (the upper enclosure is attached to mid-piece 240 facing 255; see Fig. 2; note that hermeticity would necessarily rely upon the housing walls being attached to mid-piece 240), the first housing being configured to hermetically seal the optical element (see Col. 5 lines 24-30; note that the first housing/”upper enclosure” surrounds optical element 255).
Verdiell suggests the mid-piece 240 may be ceramic which is a non-conductive, low expansion substrate (see Col. 6 lines 5-6), but fails to explicitly disclose that the substrate (mid-piece 240) is, or may be, a glass substrate, the glass substrate being made of glass except glass epoxy.
Shen disclose a similar device with a first substrate made of glass except glass epoxy (see claim 1 and Para. 10 and 46).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the glass substrate of Shen in the device of Verdiell for the purpose of using a cost-effective, simple, common material, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 2, Verdiell/Shen disclose the optical module according to claim 1 as discussed above.
Verdiell further discloses hermetically sealed vias (see Col. 5 line 38), but fails to teach that the via hole is made of a particular material having a thermal conductivity larger that the thermal conductivity of the mid-piece 240. Verdiell suggests that the via may be made of electrically conductive material (see Col. 5 lines 43-45), but fails to specifically identify the thermal conductivity of said material.
Shen discloses a similar optical module wherein the via hole has a thermal conductivity (see claim 1 where the metal via is interpreted as the via hole; The examiner considers the thermal conductivity of metals as an intrinsic property whereby the thermal conductivity ranges from 8.4 to 400+ W/m*K as evidenced in Table 1.4 of pages 7-8 of Thermophysical Properties of Materials For Nuclear Engineering: A Tutorial and Collection of Data, IAEA-THPH, IAEA, Vienna, 2008) larger than a thermal conductivity of a glass material of the glass substrate (the thermal conductivity of various glasses range from 0.037 to 1.40 W/m*K in Table 1.4; all of the metals and metal alloys have a thermal conductivity that is larger than the thermal conductivity of glass materials, thus the examiner is interpreting a metal via as necessarily having a larger thermal conductivity than a glass substrate).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the selected the material of the via of Verdiell as suggested by Shen for the purpose of a cheap and simple means of transferring heat thereby achieving an easily-manufactured, more desirable device, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 3, Verdiell/Shen discloses the optical module according to claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the first surface of the glass substrate (the surface of 240 facing 255) has an electrical terminal (electric components 220 are interpreted as an electric terminal) configured to be connected to an external circuit board for surface mounting of the optical module (Verdiell, see Col. 5 lines 39-45, note also Col. 4 lines 2-22 whose use can also be applied to the embodiment of Fig. 2 such that Verdiell is capable of being connected to any external connection, such as an external circuit board for surface mounting of the optical module; also note Bockstaele which discloses a more extensively described external connection wherein wire bond 40 is interpreted as the electrical terminal and electronic interface 4 is interpreted as the external circuit board; the examiner considers 4 to be external to PCB 2).
Regarding claim 4, Verdiell/Shen discloses the optical module according to claim 1 as discussed above, further comprising: a second housing (the combination of 210, 212, and 214 as seen in Fig. 2 is interpreted as the second housing) attached to the second surface of the glass substrate (the upper enclosure is attached to mid-piece 240 facing 225; see Fig. 2; note that hermeticity would necessarily rely upon the housing walls being attached to mid-piece 240) and configured to hermetically seal the temperature control element (see Col. 5 lines 65-68; note that the first housing/”upper enclosure” surrounds Peltier cooler 225), wherein the second housing includes a heat radiation member (“heat sink” is interpreted as a heat radiation member) thermally coupled to the temperature control element for heat radiation to an outside (see Col. 2 lines 48-53; see Col. 5 lines 60-62).
Regarding claim 6, Verdiell/Shen discloses the optical module according to claim 2 as discussed above, wherein the first surface of the glass substrate (the surface of 240 facing 255) has an electrical terminal (electric components 220 are interpreted as an electric terminal) configured to be connected to an external circuit board for surface mounting of the optical module (See Col. 5 lines 39-45; note also Col. 4 lines 2-22 whose use can also be applied to the embodiment of Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Verdiell/Shen discloses the optical module according to claim 2 as discussed above, further comprising a second housing (the combination of 210, 212, and 214 as seen in Fig. 2 is interpreted as the second housing) attached to the second surface of the glass substrate (the upper enclosure is attached to mid-piece 240 facing 225; see Fig. 2; note that hermeticity would necessarily rely upon the housing walls being attached to mid-piece 240) and configured to hermetically seal the temperature control element (see Col. 5 lines 65-68; note that the first housing/”upper enclosure” surrounds Peltier cooler 225), wherein the second housing includes a heat radiation member (“heat sink” is interpreted as a heat radiation member) thermally coupled to the temperature control element for heat radiation to an outside (see Col. 2 lines 48-53; see Col. 5 lines 60-62).
Regarding claim 8, Verdiell/Shen discloses the optical module according to claim 3 as discussed above, further comprising a second housing (the combination of 210, 212, and 214 as seen in Fig. 2 is interpreted as the second housing) attached to the second surface of the glass substrate (the upper enclosure is attached to mid-piece 240 facing 225; see Fig. 2; note that hermeticity would necessarily rely upon the housing walls being attached to mid-piece 240) and configured to hermetically seal the temperature control element (see Col. 5 lines 65-68; note that the first housing/”upper enclosure” surrounds Peltier cooler 225), wherein the second housing includes a heat radiation member (“heat sink” is interpreted as a heat radiation member) thermally coupled to the temperature control element for heat radiation to an outside (see Col. 2 lines 48-53; see Col. 5 lines 60-62).
Regarding claims 12-14, Verdiell/Shen discloses the optical module according to claim 1 as discussed above, but fail to explicitly teach or suggest specific glass substrates:
wherein the glass substrate is made of at least one of soda lime glass, borosilicate glass, crystallized glass, or quartz glass (claim 12);
wherein the glass substrate includes silicon dioxide (SiO2) as a main component of the glass (claim 13); and
wherein the glass substrate has a composition containing at least one of sodium (Na) or calcium (Ca) (claim 14).
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would understand that "glass" is a broad term that encompasses many different variations of glass materials, and an ordinarily skilled artisan would not need to see every variation of glass materials to understand that different varieties of glass exist. It would require only routine skill in the art to choose the optimal material depending on the desired outcome. Furthermore, the Applicant’s specification discloses these materials, but has not identified any special benefit or properties. Without such identification, the Applicant has not indicated that they believe the materials are special either. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to select a glass substrate made of at least one of soda lime glass, borosilicate glass, crystallized glass, or quartz glass, or includes silicon dioxide (SiO2) as a main component of the glass, or has a composition containing at least one of sodium (Na) or calcium (Ca) for the device of Verdiell/Shen, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verdiell in US Patent 6,252,726 (hereinafter "Verdiell") in view of Shen et al. in US 20230268249 A1 (hereinafter "Shen"), which claims foreign priority to EP 4235244 B1 filed on February 24, 2022 in English and appears substantially similar to Shen, and in further view of Lin et al. in US 20200251879 A1 (hereinafter "Lin").
Regarding claim 5, Verdiell/Shen discloses the optical module according to claim 4 as discussed above, but fails to explicitly disclose that the first housing (the combination of 230, 242, 270, and 275) has an inner volume smaller than an inner volume of the second housing (the combination of 210, 212, and 214).
Lin teaches that hermetically sealed packages can include specifically designed cavities to house components in ways that optimize space constraints and promote thermal communication (see Para. 15). Since Verdiell also suggests that the height of the enclosure containing the optical components can be reduced (see Col. 6 lines 20-31), then it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the inner volume of the first housing be smaller than the inner volume of the second housing in the optical module of Verdiell/Shen for the purpose of reducing the profile, optimizing space, and promoting thermal communication thereby achieving a more desirable optical module, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized in as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)) and that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In re Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Claim(s) 9-11 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Bockstaele et al. in US 20240184067 (hereinafter "Bockstaele") in view of Shen et al. in US 20230268249 A1 (hereinafter "Shen") which claims foreign priority to EP 4235244 B1 filed on February 24, 2022 in English and appears substantially similar to Shen.
Regarding claim 9, Bockstaele discloses an optical module comprising:
an optical element (PIC 1) configured to consume an electricity (PIC 1 is electrically connected with wire bond 40) and perform at least one of an input and an output of an optical signal (PIC 1 necessarily receives or sends an optical signal to or from fiber array 30 );
a temperature control element configured to regulate a temperature of the optical element (thermal plate 51a is interpreted as a temperature control element which channels thermal flow from the optical element 1; see Para. 71); and
a glass substrate (PCB 2 is interpreted as the glass substrate; see Para. 46 for disclosure of FR-4 glass epoxy) sandwiched between the optical element and the temperature control element (PCB 2 is sandwiched between PIC 1 and thermal plate 51a; see Fig. 2A), the glass substrate (PCB2) including a via hole (thermal via 5) connected between the optical element and the temperature control element (via 5 connects PIC 1 and thermal plate 51a; see Fig. 2A and Para. 71), the via hole having a thermal conductivity (see Para. 51 where thermal via 5 is copper; The examiner considers the thermal conductivity of copper as an intrinsic property whereby the thermal conductivity of copper is 385 W/m*K as evidenced by Young in Table 17.5 of page 561, Young, H.D. et al., University Physics, 11th Ed., Pearson, 2004.) larger than a thermal conductivity of a glass material of the glass substrate (the thermal conductivity of the FR-4 glass epoxy PCB substrate is about 3 W/m*K in Para. 47; 385 W/m*K is larger than about 3 W/m*K).
Bockstaele fails to teach the temperature control element being a thermoelectric cooler including a Peltier element.
Shen teaches a temperature control element being a thermoelectric cooler including a Peltier element (“thermoelectric cooler” or “TEC”; note Para. 5, 22-24, 58-64, and claim 6; while Shen does not explicitly mention “Peltier element”, thermoelectric coolers necessarily increase or reduce heat via the Peltier effect and thus thermoelectric coolers necessarily comprise a Peltier element).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the thermoelectric cooler of Shen in the device of Bockstaele for the purpose of finely adjusting the device temperature thereby achieving improved thermal management.
PNG
media_image1.png
316
406
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2A
Regarding claim 10, Bockstaele/Shen discloses the optical module according to claim 9 as discussed above, wherein the glass substrate having a first surface (see Annotated Fig. 2A above), a second surface opposite to the first surface (see Annotated Fig. 2A above)), and
wherein the optical element is mounted on the first surface (see Annotated Fig. 2A above)) and the temperature control element is mounted on the second surface (see Annotated Fig. 2A above).
Regarding claim 11, Bockstaele/Shen discloses the optical module according to claim 10 as discussed above, wherein the first surface (see Annotated Fig. 2A) of the glass substrate (PCB 2) has an electrical terminal (wire bond 40 is interpreted as the electrical terminal) configured to be connected to an external circuit board (electronic interface 4 is interpreted as the external circuit board; the examiner considers 4 to be external to PCB 2).
Regarding claim 16, Bockstaele/Shen discloses the optical module according to claim 9 as discussed above, but Bockstaele fails to explicitly teach that the glass substrate is made of glass except glass epoxy.
Shen disclose a similar device with a first substrate made of glass except glass epoxy (see claim 1 and Para. 10 and 46).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the glass substrate of Shen in the device of Verdiell for the purpose of using a cost-effective, simple, common material, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 17-19, Bockstaele/Shen discloses the optical module according to claim 9 as discussed above, but fail to explicitly teach or suggest specific glass substrates:
wherein the glass substrate is made of at least one of soda lime glass, borosilicate glass, crystallized glass, or quartz glass (claim 17);
wherein the glass substrate includes silicon dioxide (SiO2) as a main component of the glass (claim 18); and
wherein the glass substrate has a composition containing at least one of sodium (Na) or calcium (Ca) (claim 19).
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would understand that "glass" is a broad term that encompasses many different variations of glass materials, and an ordinarily skilled artisan would not need to see every variation of glass materials to understand that different varieties of glass exist. It would require only routine skill in the art to choose the optimal material depending on the desired outcome. Furthermore, the Applicant’s specification discloses these materials, but has not identified any special benefit or properties. Without such identification, the Applicant has not indicated that they believe the materials are special either. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to select a glass substrate made of at least one of soda lime glass, borosilicate glass, crystallized glass, or quartz glass, or includes silicon dioxide (SiO2) as a main component of the glass, or has a composition containing at least one of sodium (Na) or calcium (Ca) for the device of Bockstaele/Shen, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verdiell in US Patent 6,252,726 (hereinafter "Verdiell") in view of Shen et al. in US 20230268249 A1 (hereinafter "Shen"), which claims foreign priority to EP 4235244 B1 filed on February 24, 2022 in English and appears substantially similar to Shen, and in further view of Laakso et al., Through-Glass Vias for Glass Interposers and MEMS Packaging Applications Fabricated Using Magnetic Assembly of Microscale Metal Wires, IEEE Access, 2018, pp. 1-11 (hereinafter "Laakso").
Regarding claim 15, Verdiell/Shen discloses the optical module according to claim 1 as discussed above, but fails to explicitly teach that the glass substrate has a linear expansion coefficient less than 10 [ppm/K].
Laakso teaches a variety of material options for a glass substrate with through-glass-vias with coefficients of thermal expansion less than 10 [ppm/K] (see the dashed lines and the description of Fig. 9).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the linear expansion coefficient of the glass substrate less than 10 [ppm/K] in the device of Verdiell/Shen for the purpose of reducing thermal expansion mismatch in TGVs thereby achieving improved device lifespan.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Bockstaele et al. in US 20240184067 (hereinafter "Bockstaele") in view of Shen et al. in US 20230268249 A1 (hereinafter "Shen"), which claims foreign priority to EP 4235244 B1 filed on February 24, 2022 in English and appears substantially similar to Shen, and in view of Laakso et al., Through-Glass Vias for Glass Interposers and MEMS Packaging Applications Fabricated Using Magnetic Assembly of Microscale Metal Wires, IEEE Access, 2018, pp. 1-11 (hereinafter "Laakso").
Regarding claim 20, Bockstaele/Shen discloses the optical module according to claim 9 as discussed above, but fails to explicitly teach that the glass substrate has a linear expansion coefficient less than 10 [ppm/K].
Laakso teaches a variety of material options for a glass substrate with through-glass-vias with coefficients of thermal expansion less than 10 [ppm/K] (see the dashed lines and the description of Fig. 9).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the linear expansion coefficient of the glass substrate less than 10 [ppm/K] in the device of Verdiell/Shen for the purpose of reducing thermal expansion mismatch in TGVs thereby achieving improved device lifespan.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20060029114 A1 discloses a glass board for visual confirmation of container airtightness.
US 20230154825 A1 discloses a similar device with through vias.
US 11778729 B2 discloses a similar device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARBY M THOMASON whose telephone number is (703)756-5817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8am-5pm.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/DARBY M. THOMASON/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874