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
The amendments filed 06/30/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, and 4-20 remain pending in the application, claim 3 has been cancelled. Applicant' s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 04/09/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/30/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2 and 4-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the specific combination of the references being used in the current rejection.
In response to applicant’s argument that references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that features upon which applicant relies (i.e. “transmitters arranged in a staggered manner”) were not required in the rejected claims as they were recited in the alternative. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant argues that none of Onda, Hughes, Muhammed, Hehl, Aoki, or Ma teach staggering laser transmitters groups. However, these claim limitations were recited in the alternative in the previous claims, and are only now required by amendment on 06/30/2026. Therefore, the issue of whether Onda, Hughes, Muhammed, Hehl, Aoki, or Ma addresses these limitations are not relevant. These amended claims containing newly required limitations have been addressed by Halbritter in the present Office Action.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [85] uses the incorrect reference number for the “receiving component”.
Paragraph [138] has a typo, stating “SAPD” instead of “SPAD”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 9, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onda et al. (US 20220365178) in view of Halbritter et al. (US 20220349998)
Regarding claim 1, Onda teaches:
A detection device (#10 of Fig. 1, optical detector), comprising:
a transmitter, configured to transmit a laser beam (#13 of Fig. 1, laser emitting element), wherein the transmitter comprises a laser transmitter array (#13 of Fig. 11, laser emitting element) comprising at least one column of laser transmitters (#13 of Fig. 11, laser emitting element)
a collimator and shaper (#15 of Fig. 1, projecting lens system), configured to process the laser beam as a collimated linear laser beam or planar laser beam [47 and 123];
a scanning rotating mirror (#21 of Fig. 2, scanning unit), comprising at least one reflection surface (#23 of Fig. 2, reflecting surface), the at least one reflection surface is configured to reflect the collimated linear laser beam or the planar laser beam [48-50]; and
a receiver (#31 of Fig.1, light receiving unit), configured to receive a target echo [50], wherein the target echo comprises a reflected signal of the collimated linear laser beam or the planar laser beam [47-50], wherein the receiver comprises a single-photon avalanche detector pixel array (#33 of Fig. 3, detection element, [52]), the single-photon avalanche detector pixel array comprises a plurality of pixels (#35 of Fig. 3, pixels), and each of the plurality of pixels comprises one or more single-photon avalanche detectors [52].
Onda does not teach:
wherein a first column of the at least one column of laser transmitters comprises at least N groups of laser transmitters arranged in a staggered manner, wherein N is a positive integer greater than one
However, Halbritter teaches:
wherein a first column of the at least one column of laser transmitters comprises at least N groups of laser transmitters (#43a and #43b of Fig. 9b, VCSELs, VCSELs of #43a are a first group and VCSELs of #43b are of a second group) arranged in a staggered manner (“The VCSELs 43a and 43b are arranged slightly offset with respect to the centre line of a column, as shown in FIG. 9b.”) , wherein N is a positive integer greater than one (Fig. 9b shows two groups of VCSEL transmitters #43a and #43b)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the emitter of Onda to use staggered groups of VCSELs in a column similar to Halbritter with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the density of the VCSEL array and allowing for a higher power laser output for more accurate detection. As a teaching reference, Yavid et al. (US 20020125324), states: “adjacent VCSEL columns can be placed in a staggered fashion to provide additional vertical resolution even though the minimum distance between the VCSELs is limited t a finite distance due to heating”, thus showing the predictability of the above result.
Regarding claim 4, Onda, as modified above, teaches:
The detection device according to claim 1,
Onda does not teach:
wherein each of the N groups of laser transmitters comprises a same quantity of laser transmitters or quantities of laser transmitters in at least two of the N groups are different
However, Halbritter teaches:
Wherein quantities of laser transmitters in at least two of the N groups are different (Fig. 9 shows two groups of VCSELs with a different number of transmitters in each group)
Additionally, Halbritter teaches:
The first group of VCSELs have an operating temperature of -40 C to 40 C, while the second group of VCSEL’s has an operating range of 40 C to 120 C. [125]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the emitter of Onda use to two groups of laser transmitters with a different number of transmitters in each group similar to Halbritter with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the operating temperature range of the emitter (Halbritter: [125]).
Regarding claim 5, Onda, as modified above, teaches:
The detection device according to claim 1, wherein the laser transmitter array comprises at least one of an edge-emitting laser transmitter ([45] states that the light is produced using a Fabry-Perot resonator structure, which is an edge-emitting laser) or a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser transmitter.
As a teaching reference:
Skidmore (Skidmore, Jay. Semiconductor Lasers for 3-D Sensing. OPTICS & PHOTONICS NEWS, February 2019 Issue [serialonline], [retrieved on 2026-04-03]. Retrieved from the Internet <URL: https://www.optica-opn.org/home/articles/volume_30/february_2019/features/semiconductor_lasers_for_3-d_sensing/>) teaches that Fabry Perot laser diodes are edge emitting lasers.
Regarding claim 6, Onda, as modified above, teaches:
The detection device according to claim 1, wherein the detection device further comprises a processor (#14 of Fig. 1, light emitting control unit), configured to control a transmission parameter of each laser transmitter in the laser transmitter array [45], wherein the transmission parameter comprises at least one of a transmitting switch parameter [45], a transmitting power parameter, a pulsed/continuous light transmission parameter [45], and a repetitive frequency parameter [45].
Regarding claim 9, Onda teaches:
The detection device according to claim 1, wherein the transmitter and the receiver are located on a same side of the scanning rotating mirror (light emitting unit #11 and light receiving unit #31 of Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Onda teaches:
A control method of a detection device (#10 of Fig. 1, optical detector), comprising:
controlling a transmitter to transmit a laser beam (#13 of Fig. 1, laser emitting element), wherein the laser beam is processed by a collimator and shaper (#15 of Fig. 1, projecting lens system) as a collimated linear laser beam [47 and 123], wherein the transmitter comprises a laser transmitter array (#13 of Fig. 11, laser emitting element) comprising at least one column of laser transmitters (#13 of Fig. 11, laser emitting element
controlling a scanning rotating mirror (#21 of Fig. 2, scanning unit) to rotate to perform scanning [48-50]; and
controlling a receiver (#31 of Fig.1, light receiving unit) to receive a target echo [50], to convert the target echo into an electrical signal [53], wherein the target echo comprises a reflected signal of the collimated linear laser beam [47-50].
Onda does not teach:
wherein a first column of the at least one column of laser transmitters comprises at least N groups of laser transmitters arranged in a staggered manner, wherein N is a positive integer greater than one
However, Halbritter teaches:
wherein a first column of the at least one column of laser transmitters comprises at least N groups of laser transmitters (#43a and #43b of Fig. 9b, VCSELs, VCSELs of #43a are a first group and VCSELs of #43b are of a second group) arranged in a staggered manner (“The VCSELs 43a and 43b are arranged slightly offset with respect to the centre line of a column, as shown in FIG. 9b.”) , wherein N is a positive integer greater than one (Fig. 9b shows two groups of VCSEL transmitters #43a and #43b)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the emitter of Onda to use staggered groups of VCSELs in a column similar to Halbritter with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the density of the VCSEL array and allowing for a higher power laser output for more accurate detection. As a teaching reference, Yavid states: “adjacent VCSEL columns can be placed in a staggered fashion to provide additional vertical resolution even though the minimum distance between the VCSELs is limited t a finite distance due to heating”, thus showing the predictability of the above result.
Regarding claim 20, Onda teaches:
A terminal ([42] states the optical detector is to be mounted on a vehicle, Applicant states in [173] states a terminal can be a vehicle), comprising a detection device (#10 of Fig. 1, optical detector), wherein the detection device comprises:
a transmitter, configured to transmit a laser beam (#13 of Fig. 1, laser emitting element), wherein the transmitter comprises a laser transmitter array (#13 of Fig. 11, laser emitting element) comprising at least one column of laser transmitters (#13 of Fig. 11, laser emitting element)
a collimator and shaper (#15 of Fig. 1, projecting lens system), configured to process the laser beam as a collimated linear laser beam or planar laser beam [47 and 123];
a scanning rotating mirror (#21 of Fig. 2, scanning unit), comprising at least one reflection surface (#23 of Fig. 2, reflecting surface), configured to reflect the collimated linear laser beam or the planar laser beam [48-50]; and
a receiver (#31 of Fig.1, light receiving unit), configured to receive a target echo [50], wherein the target echo comprises a reflected signal of the collimated linear laser beam or the planar laser beam [47-50], wherein the receiver comprises a single-photon avalanche detector pixel array (#33 of Fig. 3, detection element, [52]), the single-photon avalanche detector pixel array comprises a plurality of pixels (#35 of Fig. 3, pixels), and each of the plurality of pixels comprises one or more single-photon avalanche detectors [52].
Onda does not teach:
wherein a first column of the at least one column of laser transmitters comprises at least N groups of laser transmitters arranged in a staggered manner, wherein N is a positive integer greater than one
However, Halbritter teaches:
wherein a first column of the at least one column of laser transmitters comprises at least N groups of laser transmitters (#43a and #43b of Fig. 9b, VCSELs, VCSELs of #43a are a first group and VCSELs of #43b are of a second group) arranged in a staggered manner (“The VCSELs 43a and 43b are arranged slightly offset with respect to the centre line of a column, as shown in FIG. 9b.”) , wherein N is a positive integer greater than one (Fig. 9b shows two groups of VCSEL transmitters #43a and #43b)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the emitter of Onda to use staggered groups of VCSELs in a column similar to Halbritter with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the density of the VCSEL array and allowing for a higher power laser output for more accurate detection. As a teaching reference, Yavid states: “adjacent VCSEL columns can be placed in a staggered fashion to provide additional vertical resolution even though the minimum distance between the VCSELs is limited t a finite distance due to heating”, thus showing the predictability of the above result.
Claim(s) 2 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onda in view of Halbritter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hughes et al. (US 20190154816).
Regarding claim 2, Onda, as modified above, teaches:
The detection device according to claim 1
Onda does not teach:
wherein the detection device further comprises:
a synchronizer, configured to obtain a synchronization position of a working reflection surface in the at least one reflection surface, wherein the synchronization position represents a position at which the working reflection surface initially receives the collimated linear laser beam or the planar laser beam, and the working reflection surface corresponds to an emergent direction of the collimated linear laser beam or the planar laser beam.
Hughes teaches:
wherein the detection device further comprises: a synchronizer (#1000 of Fig. 46, rotary encoder), configured to obtain a synchronization position of a working reflection surface in the at least one reflection surface [226 and 236-239], wherein the synchronization position represents a position at which the working reflection surface initially receives the laser beam [226 and 236-239], and the working reflection surface corresponds to an emergent direction of the laser beam [226 and 236-239].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the scanning mirror of Onda with the rotary encoder of Hughes with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing for the system to correct for minor differences in synchronization and improve reliability [Hughes: 236 - 240].
Regarding claim 19, Onda teaches:
The method according to claim 16,
Onda does not teach, but Hughes does teach:
wherein before controlling the transmitter to transmit the laser beam, the method further comprises: controlling a synchronizer (#1000 of Fig. 46, rotary encoder) and the scanning rotating mirror, to obtain a synchronization position of a working reflection surface [226 and 236-239]; and controlling, based on the synchronization position, synchronization between the scanning rotating mirror and the transmitter (Fig. 49).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the control method of Onda with the synchronization method of Hughes with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing for the system to correct for minor differences in synchronization and improve reliability [Hughes: 236 - 240].
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onda in view of Halbritter as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Hamid Muhammed et al. (US 20230288193).
Regarding claim 7, Onda teaches:
The detection device according to claim 6,
wherein the processor is configured to adjust the transmission parameter of each laser transmitter in the laser transmitter array [45].
Onda does not teach, but Muhammed does teach:
wherein the collimator and shaper comprises a plurality of microlens components (#118 of Fig. 1, transfer devices, [112]), and different microlens components of the plurality of microlens components collimate and shape the laser beam into a linear laser beam [112-115] in which energy is differently distributed (Applicant states in [101] of the specification that “energy intensity of the light spot is differently distributed as a whole”);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the collimating and shaping components of Onda to be microlenses similar to Muhammed with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing accuracy more easily solving correspondence [Muhammed : 69]. In this case, the projector could create linear/elliptical beam spots of various sizes.
Regarding claim 17, Onda, as modified above, teaches:
The method according to claim 16
Onda does not teach, but Muhammed does teach:
further comprising:
controlling a transmission parameter of each laser transmitter or a plurality of microlens components based on the electrical signal corresponding to the target echo ([69] states that intensity of each spot may be controlled to handle bright and dark spots), to adjust an energy distribution of the collimated linear laser beam ([69] states that spot ellipticities can be changed).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the collimating and shaping components of Onda to be microlenses and controlling them similar to Muhammed with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of reducing noise from highly reflective surfaces and increasing the SNR in regions with farther objects.
Claim(s) 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onda in view of Halbritter and Muhammed as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Hughes.
Regarding claim 8, Onda as modified above teaches:
The detection device according to claim 7.
Onda does not teach, but Hughes does teach:
wherein the at least one reflection surface (#12 of Fig. 6, polygon mirror) is disposed in parallel to an axial direction of a rotating shaft of the scanning rotating mirror (#30 of Fig. 6, polygon mirror axle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the scanning mirror of Onda with the axle of Hughes with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the scanning mirror to be rotated by a motor. Onda recites a scanning mirror, but does not specify how the scanning mirror is rotated. Hughes merely fills in the gaps.
Regarding claim 11, Onda, as modified above, teaches:
The detection device according to claim 8, wherein the detection device further comprises a window (Onda: #354 of Fig. 10, optical window), the scanning rotating mirror comprises the rotating shaft, the at least one reflection surface rotates around the rotating shaft, the rotating shaft is disposed between a first plane and a second plane or a curved surface (Onda: #352 of Fig. 10, outer wall portion [104] states the scanning unit is surrounded by the outer wall), the first plane is determined based on at least two of an optical axial direction of the collimated linear laser beam, a light spot extension direction of the collimated linear laser beam (Onda: Fig. 2), and the planar laser beam, and wherein the second plane or the curved surface is a plane or a curved surface on which the window is located window (Onda: #354 of Fig. 10, optical window, [106]) .
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onda in view of Halbritter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hehl (DE 202014101550)
Regarding claim 10, Onda teaches:
The detection device according to claim 1,
wherein the laser beam transmitted by the transmitter is processed by the collimator and shaper as the collimated linear laser beam or planar laser beam, the collimated linear laser beam or planar laser beam is irradiated to a first working reflection surface (#23 of Fig. 2, reflecting surface), and the receiver is configured to receive a target echo [47-50], wherein the first working reflection surface corresponds to an emergent direction of the collimated linear laser beam (Fig. 2) or the planar laser beam, and the target echo comprises a reflected signal of the collimated linear laser beam or the planar laser beam [47-50].
Onda does not teach, but Hehl does teach:
wherein the transmitter and the receiver are separately located on two sides of the scanning rotating mirror (illumination unit #18 and camera unit 12 of Fig. 1c) and the at least one reflection surface comprises two reflection surfaces that are perpendicular to each other (#22 and #24 of Fig. 1c, panoramic mirrors, [49] states the mirrors can be combined), the receiver is configured to receive a target echo reflected by a second working reflection surface (#22 of Fig. 1c, panoramic mirror), the second working reflection surface corresponds to an incident direction of the reflected signal of the laser beam (#22 of Fig. 1c, panoramic mirror) and the first working reflection surface and the second working reflection surface are perpendicular to each other (#22 and #24 of Fig. 1c, panoramic mirrors).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the transmitting and receiving paths of Onda with the scanning paths of Hehl with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of preventing noise caused by Lambertian reflections off the mirror.
Claim(s) 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onda in view of Halbritter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aoki et al. (US 20220237765)
Regarding claim 12, Onda teaches:
The detection device according to claim 1
Onda does not teach, but Aoki does teach:
further comprising a processor (#40 of Fig. 1, abnormality detection device, [105]), configured to control a parameter of the single-photon avalanche detector pixel array based on an electrical signal corresponding to the target echo [48], to adjust resolution of the receiver[48], wherein the parameter of the single-photon avalanche detector pixel array comprises at least one of a pixel interval or a quantity of single-photon avalanche detectors comprised in a pixel of the plurality of pixels [60], or a parameter indicating an arrangement of single-photon avalanche detectors comprised in the pixel.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the light receiving control unit of Onda with the variable resolution control of Aoki with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of reducing power consumption, by allowing the light receiving unit to receive and process low resolution point clouds when there is nothing of significance in the FOV.
Regarding claim 18, Onda teaches:
The method according to claim 16,
Onda does not teach, but Aoki does teach:
further comprising:
adjusting a parameter of a single-photon avalanche detector pixel array based on the electrical signal corresponding to the target echo [48], to adjust resolution of the receiver [48], wherein the parameter of the single-photon avalanche detector pixel array comprises at least one of a pixel interval or a quantity of single-photon avalanche detectors in a pixel [60].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the light receiving control method of Onda with the variable resolution control of Aoki with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of reducing power consumption, by allowing the light receiving unit to receive and process low resolution point clouds when there is nothing of significance in the FOV.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onda in view of Halbritter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ma (US 20230035528)
Regarding claim 13, Onda teaches:
The detection device according to claim 1
Onda does not teach, but Ma does teach:
wherein the collimated linear laser beam comprises a plurality of linear laser sub-beams (Fig. 27a, [238]), and the plurality of linear laser sub-beams are spliced to form the collimated linear laser beam [238]; or
the planar laser beam comprises a plurality of planar laser sub-beams, and the plurality of planar laser sub-beams are spliced to form the planar laser beam.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the LiDAR system of Onda with the beam splicing system of Ma with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the entire FOV to be scanned using a single horizontal pass [Ma: 239].
Regarding claim 14, Onda, as modified above, teaches:
The detection device according to claim 13,
Onda does not teach, but Ma does teach:
wherein adjacent linear laser sub-beams of the plurality of linear laser sub-beams are connected (Fig. 27a, [238]) or partially overlap in an extension direction of the plurality of linear laser sub-beams; or
adjacent planar laser sub-beams of the plurality of planar laser sub-beams are connected or partially overlap.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the LiDAR system of Onda with the beam splicing system of Ma with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the entire FOV to be scanned using a single horizontal pass [Ma: 239].
Regarding claim 15, Onda, as modified above, teaches:
The detection device according to claim 13
Onda does not teach, but Ma does teach:
wherein light spots of the plurality of linear laser sub-beams extend along a vertical field of view of the detection device (Fig. 27a, [238]), and the light spots of the plurality of linear laser sub-beams are distributed within the vertical field of view of the detection device (Fig. 27a, [238])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the LiDAR system of Onda with the beam splicing system of Ma with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the entire FOV to be scanned using a single horizontal pass [Ma: 239].
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 AVIRAJ D SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-9128. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-5:30pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571) 272-6970. 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.
/A.D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights