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 02/20/2026 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zediker et al. (US 2019/0273365) in view of Hirota (US 2009/0128886).
Regarding claim 1, Zediker discloses an optical component (Figure 2 and 4), comprising:
a substrate component (Figure 4 depicts: 200, base);
and a plurality of mirrors disposed on a top surface of the substrate component (Figure 4 depicts: plurality of mirrors disposed on a top surface of the substrate component)
a plurality of chip on submount ([0087] discloses: LCOS gain elements: 101a-101f, considered a plurality of chips on submount); and
a plurality of mirrors (Figure 3 depicts: 105a, 105b, … [0087] discloses: turning mirrors for each gain element) in a single, horizontal plane (Figure 2 depicts: turning mirrors disposed in a single horizontal plane; i.e., rotate Figure 2 to the right 90 degrees),
wherein each mirror, of the plurality of mirrors, is angled, non-orthogonally, with respect to the single, horizontal plane, such that each optical path associated with each mirror is disposed in a corresponding tilted plane that is non-parallel with the single, horizontal plane (Figure 2 depicts: each mirror, angled, non-orthogonally, with respect to the single, horizontal plane; they are at approx. a 45 degree angle from the horizontal plane; and each optical path associated with each mirror is disposed in a tilted plane, i.e., 45 degrees, that is not parallel with the single, horizonal plane),
wherein the plurality of COS components are aligned to the plurality of mirrors (Figure 2 depicts: 150a, 105b,… turning mirrors, aligned with 101a-101f, gain element, the COS components).
Zediker fails to disclose an optical component wherein a corresponding beam from a COS component of the plurality of COS components is reflected by a corresponding mirror of the plurality of mirrors, passing over other mirrors of the plurality of mirrors. Zediker and Hirota are related because both disclose optical components.
Hirota teaches an optical component comprising: wherein a corresponding beam from a COS component of the plurality of COS components ([0045] teaches: semiconductor light sources) is reflected by a corresponding mirror of the plurality of mirrors, passing over other mirrors of the plurality of mirrors (see annotated Figure A below, which is an annotated Figure 5 of Hirota).
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 Zediker to incorporate the teachings of Hirota and provide an optical component comprising: a substrate component; and a plurality of mirrors disposed on a top surface of the substrate component and wherein a corresponding beam from a COS component of the plurality of COS components is reflected by a corresponding mirror of the plurality of mirrors, passing over other mirrors of the plurality of mirrors. Doing so would allow for controlled redirection of emitted beams using a compact, planar mirror arrangement, thereby improving alignment, scalability and optical routing efficiency.
PNG
media_image1.png
606
863
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A
Regarding claim 9, the modified Zediker discloses the optical component of claim 1, wherein the optical component is a spatial beam combiner (Hirota: in at least abstract teaches: spatial light modulation; Figure 2 depicts: combination of beams; therefore considered a spatial beam combiner; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, 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).
Regarding claim 18, Zediker discloses an optical component (Figures 2 and 4), comprising:
a base (Figure 4 depicts: 200, base);
a plurality of chip on submount (COS) components that emit a beam ([0087] discloses: LCOS gain elements: 101a-101f, considered a plurality of chips on submount); and
a plurality of mirrors (Figure 3 depicts: 105a, 105b, … [0087] discloses: turning mirrors for each gain element) disposed on the base (Figure 3 depicts: mirrors disposed on the base) in a single, horizontal plane (Figure 2 depicts: turning mirrors disposed in a single horizontal plane; i.e., rotate Figure 2 to the right 90 degrees),
wherein each mirror, of the plurality of mirrors, is angled, non-orthogonally, with respect to the single, horizontal plane, such that each optical path associated with each mirror is disposed in a corresponding tilted plane that is non-parallel with the single, horizontal plane (Figure 2 depicts: each mirror, angled, non-orthogonally, with respect to the single, horizontal plane; they are at approx. a 45 degree angle from the horizontal plane; and each optical path associated with each mirror is disposed in a tilted plane, i.e., 45 degrees, that is not parallel with the single, horizonal plane),
wherein the plurality of COS components are aligned to the plurality of mirrors (Figure 2 depicts: the plurality of 101, gain elements aligned to the plurality of 105 mirrors), and
wherein a corresponding beam from a COS component of the plurality of COS components is reflected by a corresponding mirror of the plurality of mirrors (Figure 2 depicts: corresponding beam from 101, gain elements reflected by a corresponding mirror of 105, turning mirrors, of the plurality of mirrors)
wherein each optical path, associated with each mirror, is parallel to each other optical path (Figure 2 depicts: each optical path, associated with each mirror, is parallel to each other).
Zediker fails to disclose a device wherein a corresponding beam from a COS component of the plurality of COS components is reflected by a corresponding mirror of the plurality of mirrors, passing over other mirrors of the plurality of mirrors. Zediker and Hirota are related because both disclose optical components.
Hirota teaches a device wherein a corresponding beam from a COS component of the plurality of COS components ([0045] teaches: semiconductor light sources) is reflected by a corresponding mirror of the plurality of mirrors, passing over other mirrors of the plurality of mirrors (see annotated Figure A above, which is an annotated Figure 5 of Hirota).
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 Zediker to incorporate the teachings of Hirota and provide an optical component comprising: a substrate component; and a plurality of mirrors disposed on a top surface of the substrate component and wherein a corresponding beam from a COS component of the plurality of COS components is reflected by a corresponding mirror of the plurality of mirrors, passing over other mirrors of the plurality of mirrors. Doing so would allow for controlled redirection of emitted beams using a compact, planar mirror arrangement, thereby improving alignment, scalability and optical routing efficiency.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zediker et al. (US 2019/0273365) in view of Hirota (US 2009/0128886), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Keller et al. (US 2024/0339802, of record).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Zediker discloses the optical component of claim 1.
Zediker fails to disclose an optical component wherein the plurality of mirrors are folding mirrors. Zediker and Keller are related because both disclose optical components.
Keller teaches an optical component wherein the plurality of mirrors are folding mirrors ([0096] teaches: plurality of folded mirrors).
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 Zediker to incorporate the teachings of Keller and provide an optical component wherein the plurality of mirrors are folding mirrors. Doing so would allow for keeping the apparatus compact compared to the optical length (Keller: 0096), thereby improving the overall compactness and functionality of the optical system.
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zediker et al. (US 2019/0273365) in view of Hirota (US 2009/0128886), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Lal et al. (US 8,537,446, of record).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Zediker discloses the optical component of claim 1,
Zediker fails to disclose an optical component wherein a first optical path associated with a first mirror, of the plurality of mirrors, is in a first tilted plane and a second optical path
associated with a second mirror, of the plurality of mirrors, is in a second tilted plane that is
parallel to the first tilted plane. Zediker and Lal are related because both disclose optical
components.
Lal teaches an optical component wherein a first optical path associated with a first
mirror, of the plurality of mirrors (Figure 1 depicts: a plurality of 30, planar reflectors; therefore
considered mirrors), is in a first tilted plane and a second optical path associated with a second
mirror, of the plurality of mirrors, is in a second tilted plane that is parallel to the first tilted plane
(Figure 1 depicts: plurality of mirrors with first and second tiled planes that are parallel, see Col.
6, lines 65-67).
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 Zediker to incorporate the
teachings of Lal and provide disclose an optical component wherein a first optical path
associated with a first mirror, of the plurality of mirrors, is in a first tilted plane and a second
optical path associated with a second mirror, of the plurality of mirrors, is in a second tilted plane that is parallel to the first tilted plane. Doing so would allow for more precise mirror
illuminations and independent operation, thereby improving the overall system controllability
and stability.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Zediker discloses the optical component of claim 1,
Zediker fails to disclose an optical component wherein a size of the plurality of mirrors and
an angle of the plurality of mirrors with respect to the single, horizontal plane is configured such
that each optical path associated with each mirror does not intersect with any other mirror of the
plurality of mirrors. Zediker and Lal are related because both disclose optical components.
Lal teaches an optical component wherein a size of the plurality of mirrors and an angle
of the plurality of mirrors with respect to the single, horizontal plane is configured such that each
optical path associated with each mirror does not intersect with any other mirror of the plurality
of mirrors (Figure 1 depicts: plurality of 30, reflectors, configured so that the optical path
associated with each mirror does not intersect with any other mirror).
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 Zediker to incorporate the
teachings of Lal and provide an optical component wherein a size of the plurality of mirrors and
an angle of the plurality of mirrors with respect to the single, horizontal plane is configured such
that each optical path associated with each mirror does not intersect with any other mirror of the
plurality of mirrors. Doing so would allow for more predictable optical separation and avoiding
beam interference, thereby improving the overall efficiency, alignment stability and downstream
collection accuracy of the optical system.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Zediker discloses the optical component of claim 5, wherein a mirror, of the plurality of mirrors, includes at least a threshold area that is usable to provide an optical path without the optical path intersecting with any other mirror of the plurality of mirrors (Lal: Figure 1 depicts: plurality of 30, reflectors, configured so that the optical path associated with each mirror does not intersect with any other mirror; therefore the mirror includes at least a threshold area that is usable to provide an optical path that do not intersect the other optical paths; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 5, 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).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Zediker discloses the optical component of claim 1, wherein a first beam path directed toward a mirror, of the plurality of mirrors, is parallel to the single, horizontal plane (Col. 8, line 42 teaches: reflected sunlight; Examiner notes that sunlight is considered to be parallel beam paths to a single horizontal plane).
Zediker fails to disclose an optical component with a second beam path, reflected from the mirror, of the plurality of mirrors, is non-orthogonally angled to the single, horizontal plane.
Zediker and Lal are related because both disclose optical components.
Lal teaches an optical component with a second beam path, reflected from the mirror, of
the plurality of mirrors, is non-orthogonally angled to the single, horizontal plane (Figure 1
depicts: reflected beam path, considered the second beam path, of the plurality of mirrors, non-
orthogonally angled to the horizontal plane of 40, tile surface).
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 Zediker to incorporate the teachings of Lal and provide an optical component with a second beam path, reflected from the
mirror, of the plurality of mirrors, is non-orthogonally angled to the single, horizontal plane.
Doing so would allow for more predictable optical separation and avoiding beam interference,
thereby improving the overall efficiency, alignment stability and downstream collection accuracy
of the optical system.
Regarding claim 8, Zediker discloses the optical component of claim 1 wherein a second
beam path, directed toward the mirror, of the plurality of mirrors, is non-orthogonally angled to
the single, horizontal plane (Hironta: Figure 5 depicts: multiple beam paths, directed toward the mirrors, and is non-orthogonally angles to the horizontal plane of the mirrors).
Zediker fails to disclose an optical component wherein a first beam path reflected from a
mirror, of the plurality of mirrors, is parallel to the single, horizontal plane. Zediker and Lal are
related because both disclose optical components.
Lal teaches an optical component wherein a first beam path reflected from a mirror, of
the plurality of mirrors, is parallel to the single, horizontal plane (Figure 1 depicts: beam path
reflected from the plurality of mirrors, wherein the mirrors are parallel to a single horizontal
plane, signified by angle alpha; Col. 6, lines 65-67 teach: angles of alpha are parallel).
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 Zediker to incorporate the
teachings of Lal and provide an optical component wherein a first beam path reflected from a
mirror, of the plurality of mirrors, is parallel to the single, horizontal plane. Doing so would
allow for more predictable optical separation and avoiding beam interference, thereby improving
Claims 10-16 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zediker et al. (US 2019/0273365) in view of Miner et al. (US 2018/0246315) in view of Hirota (US 2009/0128886).
Regarding claim 10, Zediker discloses an optical module (Figures 2 and 4), comprising:
a substrate (Figure 4 depicts: 200, base);
a plurality of chip on submount (COS) components that emit a beam ([0087] discloses: LCOS gain elements: 101a-101f, considered a plurality of chips on submount);
a plurality of mirrors disposed on a top surface of the substrate (Figure 4 depicts: plurality of mirrors disposed on a top surface of the substrate),
a plurality of mirrors (Figure 3 depicts: 105a, 105b, … [0087] discloses: turning mirrors for each gain element),
wherein the plurality of COS components are aligned to the plurality of mirrors (Figure 2 depicts: 150a, 105b,… turning mirrors, aligned with 101a-101f, gain element, the COS components).
Zediker fails to disclose wherein each mirror, of the plurality of mirrors, is angled with respect to a plane of the top surface of the substrate, such that each optical path associated with each mirror is disposed in a corresponding tilted plane that is non-parallel with and non-orthogonal to the plane of the top surface of the substrate, and wherein a corresponding beam from a COS component of the plurality of COS components is reflected by a corresponding mirror of the plurality of mirrors, passing over other mirrors of the plurality of mirrors; and one or more optical components to form a set of optical paths that includes each optical path associated with each mirror. Zediker and Miner are related because both disclose optical systems.
Miner teaches a device with a substrate (Figure 6B depicts: 106, substrate); wherein each mirror, of the plurality of mirrors, is angled with respect to a plane of the top surface of the substrate (Figure 6B depicts: 512, solid reflector, angles with respect to a plane of the top surface of the substrate; Zediker supplies the plurality of mirrors and Miner supplies the angles with respect the substrate of the mirrors), such that each optical path associated with each mirror is disposed in a corresponding tilted plane that is non-parallel with and non-orthogonal to the plane of the top surface of the substrate (Figure 6B depicts: 107 and 208, light, non-parallel and non-orthogonal to the plane of the top surface of the substrate). Zediker and Hirota are related because both disclose optical components.
Hirota teaches a device wherein a corresponding beam from a COS component of the plurality of COS components ([0045] teaches: semiconductor light sources) is reflected by a corresponding mirror of the plurality of mirrors, passing over other mirrors of the plurality of mirrors (see annotated Figure A above, which is an annotated Figure 5 of Hirota); and one or more optical components to form a set of optical paths that includes each optical path associated with each mirror (Figure 5 depicts: 27, optical integrator forming a set of optical path associated with each mirror).
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 Zediker to incorporate the teachings of Miner and Hirota and provide a substrate; a plurality of mirrors disposed on a top surface of the substrate, wherein each mirror, of the plurality of mirrors, is angled with respect to a plane of the top surface of the substrate, such that each optical path associated with each mirror is disposed in a corresponding tilted plane that is non-parallel with and non-orthogonal to the plane of the top surface of the substrate, and wherein a corresponding beam from a COS component of the plurality of COS components is reflected by a corresponding mirror of the plurality of mirrors, passing over other mirrors of the plurality of mirrors; and one or more optical components to form a set of optical paths that includes each optical path associated with each mirror. Doing so would allow for controlled redirection of emitted beams using a compact, planar mirror arrangement, thereby improving alignment, scalability and optical routing efficiency.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Zediker discloses the optical module of claim 10, wherein the one or more optical components include at least one of:
a common folding mirror,
a polarization beam combiner,
a coupling lens (Hirota: [0027] teaches: 27, optical integrator, is a flys eye lens, therefore considered a coupling lens; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 10, 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),
a fast axis collimator,
a slow axis collimator,
or a fiber bulkhead.
Regarding claim 12, the modified Zediker discloses the optical module of claim 10, wherein at least one optical component, of the one or more optical components, is angled, non-orthogonally, with respect to the plane of the top surface of the substrate (Hirota: Figure 5 depicts: 27, optical integrator, angles, non-orthogonally with respect to the plane of the top surface of the substrate; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 10, 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).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Zediker discloses the optical module of claim 10, further comprising at least one of:
a spatial beam combiner,
a wavelength locked module, or
a volume Bragg grating ([0034] discloses: chip on submount with integral VBG for establishing a specific wavelength).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Zediker discloses the optical module of claim 10, wherein the substrate (the combined teachings of Zediker, Hirota and Miner teach: a plurality of chips on submounts on a substate; See Figure 2 of Zediker and Figure 6B of Miner;) comprises:
a plurality of chips related to the plurality of COS components ([0087] discloses: LCOS; therefore the chips are related to the plurality of COS components as they are integral to the component),
wherein each chip, of the plurality of chips, is associated with a corresponding mirror of the plurality of mirrors (the combined teachings of Zediker, Hirota and Miner teach: chips associated with mirrors, see Figure 2 of Zediker).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Zediker discloses the optical module of claim 14, wherein each chip, of the plurality of chips, is mounted to a package in a same horizontal plane (Figure 4 depicts: each chip of plurality of chips mounted to a package in a same horizontal plane).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Zediker discloses the optical module of claim 10, wherein the plurality of mirrors is a first plurality of mirrors forming a first bank, and wherein the optical module further comprises:
a second plurality of mirrors forming a second bank (Figure 4 depicts: multiple banks of a plurality of mirrors and CMOS components),
wherein each mirror, of the second plurality of mirrors, is angled with respect to the plane of the top surface of the substrate (Zediker discloses the plurality of mirrors; Miner: Figure 6B depicts: 512, solid reflector, angles with respect to the plane of the top surface of the substrate).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Zediker discloses the optical module of claim 10, wherein the one or more optical components are divided into a set of banks (Hirota: [0027] teaches: 27, optical integrator, has a configuration in which a plurality of 28, lens elements are tow-dimensionally arranged, such grouping of optical components into distinct optical paths constitutes a set of banks under BRI; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 10, 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).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Zediker discloses the optical module of claim 10, wherein each bank of the set of banks uses a fork structure (Figure 4 depicts: 201-206 and 201a-206a, banks of optical components in a fork structure, i.e., two pronged fork).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zediker et al. (US 2019/0273365) in view of Miner et al. (US 2018/0246315) in view of Hirota (US 2009/0128886), as applied to claim 16 above, in view of Werber et al. (US 2014/0218708).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Zediker discloses the optical module of claim 16.
Zediker fails to disclose an optical module wherein the first bank is at a first height above a base to which the substrate is attached and the second bank is at a second height above the base. Zediker and Werber are related because both disclose optical light manipulation
Werber teaches an optical module wherein the first bank is at a first height above a base to which the substrate is attached ([0024] teaches: array of mirrors arranged in three or even more different heights above the substrate; Examiner notes that each height is considered a bank; Examiner notes that Werber contains the banks of different heights with Zediers providing the base miner the angled mirror above the base) and the second bank is at a second height above the base ([0024] teaches: array of mirrors arranged in three or even more different heights above the substrate; Examiner notes that each height is considered a bank).
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 Zediker to incorporate the teachings of Werber and provide an optical module wherein the first bank is at a first height above a base to which the substrate is attached and the second bank is at a second height above the base. Doing so would allow for controlled separation of optical paths and avoidance of beam interference, therby improving system performance and optical efficiency .
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zediker et al. (US 2019/0273365) in view of Hirota (US 2009/0128886), as applied to claim 18 above, in view of Goren et al. (US 2024/0241225).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Zediker discloses the optical component of claim 18.
Zediker fails to disclose a device wherein a tilting angle of each mirror is associated with a pitch of each mirror. Zediker and Goren are related because both disclose light modification devices.
Goren teaches a device wherein a tilting angle of each mirror is associated with a pitch of each mirror ([0138] teaches: spacing between adjacent beams associated with the angle by which the scanning mirror is rotated).
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 Zediker to incorporate the teachings of Goren and provide a device wherein a tilting angle of each mirror is associated with a pitch of each mirror. Doing so would allow for controlled separation of optical paths and reduce beam interference, thereby improving optical performance and system efficiency.
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 - Thursday 6:00 - 11:00 and 1:00 - 6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights