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
This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks/Amendments filed on 11 March, 2026. The amendments have been entered.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites, “wherein the nozzle DFPA is receive infrared focused by optical elements of the seeker”, which appears to include a grammatical error. At best, it is suggested the claim be amended to - - wherein the nozzle DFPA [[is]] receives infrared focused by optical elements of the seeker - -.
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.
Claim 2 is 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 2 has been amended to recite, “wherein the nozzle DFPA is receive infrared radiation focused by optical elements of the seeker” which is new matter. The claimed invention does not disclose a nozzle DFPA nor wherein a nozzle DFPA receives infrared radiation focused by optical elements of the seeker. As such, the subject matter is considered to be new matter. When evaluating claims for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103, all the limitations of the claims must be considered and given weight, including limitations which do not find support in the specification as originally filed (i.e., new matter). Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983) aff’d mem. 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (Claim to a catalyst expressly excluded the presence of sulfur, halogen, uranium, and a combination of vanadium and phosphorous. Although the negative limitations excluding these elements did not appear in the specification as filed, it was error to disregard these limitations when determining whether the claimed invention would have been obvious in view of the prior art.). "All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art." In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 694, 169 USPQ 597, 600 (CCPA 1971) (quoting In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970)). See MPEP § 2143.03 – II. As such, the claim is being interpreted as recited within claim 2 even though the limitation does not find support in the originally disclosed application.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the nozzle DFPA" in lines 1-2 There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as a nozzle DFPA.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8, 10-12 and 15, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by STUBBS (US 5,598,711 – published 4 February, 1997).
As to claim 8, STUBBS discloses a cryo-adapter(71) comprising:
an end cap(79) forming an interior for the cryo-adapter(figure 2-3); and
tubing(29) comprising a nozzle (opening at end of 29) that extends through the end cap (figure 2-3; through opening, 89; col. 6, line 54- col.7, line 2)into the interior of the cryo-adapter (figure 2-3),the nozzle configured to disperse liquefied cryogen to the interior of the cryo-adapter(col.4, lines 40-42; figure 3).
As to claim 10, STUBBS discloses wherein the cryo-adapter further comprises an exit port (101) configured to release the liquefied cryogen from the interior of the cryo-adapter (figures 3; col.7, line 15- 36; col. 8, lines 6-17).
As to claim 11, STUBBS discloses wherein the exit port (101) is configured to disperse the liquefied cryogen along an outside surface of the cryo-adapter (figures 3; col.7, line 15- 36; col. 8, lines 6-17).
As to claim 12, STUBBS disclose wherein the cryo-adapter further comprises a Joule-Thomson cryostat configured to transfer heat from the cryo-adapter (23; col. 4, lines 1-8; col.4, lines 12-18).
As to claim 15, STUBBS discloses a method comprising:
removing heat(col. 4, lines 35-42) through an end cap(79) forming an interior for a cryo-adapter(figure 2-3); and
dispersing(col.4, lines 40-42), using a nozzle (opening at end of 29) that extends through the endcap (figures 2-3; through opening, 89; col.6, line 54-col. 7, line 2) into the interior of the cryo-adapter, liquefied cryogen to the interior of the cryo-adapter through tubing(col.4, lines 40-42; figure 3).
As to claim 17, STUBBS discloses dispersing, using an exit port (101), the liquefied cryogen from the interior of the cryo-adapter (figures 3; col.7, line 15- 36; col. 8, lines 6-17).
As to claim 18, STUBBS discloses releasing, using the exit port (101), the liquefied cryogen along an outside surface of the cryo-adapter (figures 3; col.7, line 15- 36; col. 8, lines 6-17).
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, 3-5, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STUBBS (US 5,598,711 – published 4 February, 1997), in view of SCHULTZ (NPL: Digital-Pixel Focal Plane Array Technology – Schultz et al. -- published 2014.)
As to claim 1, STUBBS discloses a seeker comprising:
a housing (51; col. 4, lines 9-11);
a focal plane array (FPA)(41; col.5, lines 30-32) positioned within the housing (figure 1, in view of col.5, line 67-col.6, line 6); and
a cryo-adapter(71) positioned in the housing adjacent to the FPA(figure 2) and configured to remove heat from the FPA(col.5, line 65-col.6, line 10), the cryo-adapter comprising:
an end cap(79) forming an interior for the cryo-adapter(figure 2-3); and
tubing(29) comprising a nozzle (opening at end of 29) that extends through the end cap (figure 2-3; through opening, 89; col. 6, line 54- col.7, line 2)into the interior of the cryo-adapter (figure 2-3),the nozzle configured to disperse liquefied cryogen to the interior of the cryo-adapter(col.4, lines 40-42; figure 3).
However, STUBBS does not disclose wherein the focal plane array is necessarily a digital focal plane array.
SCHULTZ, however, is within the relevant field of endeavor of focal plane arrays and digital focal plane arrays. SCHULTZ teaches wherein digital focal plane arrays (DFPA) were developed to address the shortfalls of conventional focal plane arrays (FPA). Specifically, FPA’s have limited data range, dynamic range, and on-chip capabilities, of which DFPA’s were developed to overcome. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify STUBBS to incorporate a digital focal plane array, in place of a focal plane array, to overcome these shortfalls recognized and associated with focal plane arrays.
As to claim 3, STUBBS, as modified, discloses wherein the cryo-adapter further comprises an exit port (101) configured to release the liquefied cryogen from the interior of the cryo-adapter (figures 3; col.7, line 15- 36; col. 8, lines 6-17).
As to claim 4, STUBBS, as modified, discloses wherein the exit port (101) is configured to disperse the liquefied cryogen along an outside surface of the cryo-adapter ((figures 3; col.7, line 15- 36; col. 8, lines 6-17).
As to claim 5, STUBBS, as modified, disclose wherein the cryo-adapter further comprises a Joule-Thomson cryostat configured to transfer heat from the cryo-adapter (23; col. 4, lines 1-8; col.4, lines 12-18).
As to claim 9, STUBBS discloses wherein the cryo-adapter is configured to remove heat from a focal plane array (41) positioned adjacent to the cryo-adapter (figures 2-3; col.5, lines 3-22).
However, STUBBS does not disclose wherein the focal plane array is necessarily a digital focal plane array.
SCHULTZ, however, is within the relevant field of endeavor of focal plane arrays and digital focal plane arrays. SCHULTZ teaches wherein digital focal plane arrays (DFPA) were developed to address the shortfalls of conventional focal plane arrays (FPA). Specifically, FPA’s have limited data range, dynamic range, and on-chip capabilities, of which DFPA’s were developed to overcome. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify STUBBS to incorporate a digital focal plane array, in place of a focal plane array, to overcome these shortfalls recognized and associated with focal plane arrays.
As to claim 16, STUBBS discloses wherein the cryo-adapter is configured to remove heat from a focal plane array (41) positioned adjacent to the cryo-adapter (figures 2-3; col.5, lines 3-22).
However, STUBBS does not disclose wherein the focal plane array is necessarily a digital focal plane array.
SCHULTZ, however, is within the relevant field of endeavor of focal plane arrays and digital focal plane arrays. SCHULTZ teaches wherein digital focal plane arrays (DFPA) were developed to address the shortfalls of conventional focal plane arrays (FPA). Specifically, FPA’s have limited data range, dynamic range, and on-chip capabilities, of which DFPA’s were developed to overcome. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify STUBBS to incorporate a digital focal plane array, in place of a focal plane array, to overcome these shortfalls recognized and associated with focal plane arrays.
Claim(s) 6-7, 13-14, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STUBBS (US 5,598,711 – published 4 February, 1997), in view of SCHULTZ (NPL: Digital-Pixel Focal Plane Array Technology – Schultz et al. -- published 2014.) and LYONS (US 2017/0108248 A1 – published 20 April, 2017).
As to claim 6, STUBBS, as modified, does not further disclose wherein the cryo-adapter further comprises a Stirling cryo-engine configured to transfer heat from the cryo-adapter.
LYONS, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a seeker (abstract; figure 2). LYONS teaches a cryo-adapter (212) positioned adjacent to a focal plane array (par. 27-28, in view of claim 7), with an end cap (202) forming an interior for the cryo-adapter (par. 28; figure 2). More so, LYONS teaches wherein cryo-adapter comprises a Stirling cryo-engine(221; par. 30) configured to transfer heat from the cryo-adapter (par. 30). Notably, LYONS indicates utilizing both a Joule-Thomson cryostat, such as disclosed by STUBBS, in addition to the Stirling cryo-engine for the purpose of enabling quick ready times and long ren times, while minimizing size and steady-state head load increases (par. 25). More so, the combination allows for the integration to take advantage of lost refrigeration power from the Joule-Thomson heat exchanger inefficiency to cool the compression side of the Stirling cold head to increase Stirling cooler performance (par.25). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify STUBBS further with the teachings of LYSON, for the purpose of for the purpose of enabling quick ready times and long ren times, while minimizing size and steady-state head load increases (par. 25) and allowing for the integration to take advantage of lost refrigeration power from the Joule-Thomson heat exchanger inefficiency to cool the compression side of the Stirling cold head to increase Stirling cooler performance (par.25).
As to claim 7, STUBBS, as modified, previously taught wherein the liquefied cryogen dispersed within the interior of the cryo-adapter is used as a heat transfer medium for the Joule-Thomson cryostat (col.4, line 57-col.5, line2).
Further, the teachings of STUBBS, as modified by LYONS, provided the integration of the Stirling cryo-engine with the Joule-Thomson cryostat (see rejection of claim 7).
LYONS, further, teaches, wherein the Joule-Thomson cryostat is used to cool the Stirling cryo-engine (par.25).
As such, providing the dispersed liquefied cryogen being used as a heat transfer medium for the Joule-Thomson cryostat, necessarily provides the dispersed liquefied cryogen being used as a heat transfer medium for the Stirling cryo-engine, as well, by cooling through the Joule-Thomson cryostat. For this, the prior art effectively teaches the requirement of the dispersed liquefied cryogen being used as the heat transfer medium for both the Joule-Thomson cryostat and Stirling cryo-engine.
As to claim 13, STUBBS does not further disclose wherein the cryo-adapter further comprises a Stirling cryo-engine configured to transfer heat from the cryo-adapter.
LYONS, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a seeker (abstract; figure 2). LYONS teaches a cryo-adapter (212) positioned adjacent to a focal plane array (par. 27-28, in view of claim 7), with an end cap (202) forming an interior for the cryo-adapter (par. 28; figure 2). More so, LYONS teaches wherein cryo-adapter comprises a Stirling cryo-engine(221; par. 30) configured to transfer heat from the cryo-adapter (par. 30). Notably, LYONS indicates utilizing both a Joule-Thomson cryostat, such as disclosed by STUBBS, in addition to the Stirling cryo-engine for the purpose of enabling quick ready times and long ren times, while minimizing size and steady-state head load increases (par. 25). More so, the combination allows for the integration to take advantage of lost refrigeration power from the Joule-Thomson heat exchanger inefficiency to cool the compression side of the Stirling cold head to increase Stirling cooler performance (par.25). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify STUBBS with the teachings of LYSON, for the purpose of for the purpose of enabling quick ready times and long ren times, while minimizing size and steady-state head load increases (par. 25) and allowing for the integration to take advantage of lost refrigeration power from the Joule-Thomson heat exchanger inefficiency to cool the compression side of the Stirling cold head to increase Stirling cooler performance (par.25).
As to claim 14, STUBBS previously taught wherein the liquefied cryogen dispersed within the interior of the cryo-adapter is used as a heat transfer medium for the Joule-Thomson cryostat (col.4, line 57-col.5, line2).
Further, the teachings of STUBBS, as modified by LYONS, provided the integration of the Stirling cryo-engine with the Joule-Thomson cryostat (see rejection of claim 7).
LYONS, further, teaches, wherein the Joule-Thomson cryostat is used to cool the Stirling cryo-engine (par.25).
As such, providing the dispersed liquefied cryogen being used as a heat transfer medium for the Joule-Thomson cryostat, necessarily provides the dispersed liquefied cryogen being used as a heat transfer medium for the Stirling cryo-engine, as well, by cooling through the Joule-Thomson cryostat. For this, the prior art effectively teaches the requirement of the dispersed liquefied cryogen being used as the heat transfer medium for both the Joule-Thomson cryostat and Stirling cryo-engine.
As to claim 19, STUBBS discloses transferring, using a Joule-Thomson cryostat, heat from the cryo-adapter (23; col. 4, lines 1-8; col.4, lines 12-18).
However, STUBBS does not further disclose transferring, using a Stirling cryo-engine, heat from the cryo-adapter.
LYONS, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a seeker (abstract; figure 2). LYONS teaches a cryo-adapter (212) positioned adjacent to a focal plane array (par. 27-28, in view of claim 7), with an end cap (202) forming an interior for the cryo-adapter (par. 28; figure 2). More so, LYONS teaches wherein cryo-adapter comprises a Stirling cryo-engine(221; par. 30) configured to transfer heat from the cryo-adapter (par. 30). Notably, LYONS indicates utilizing both a Joule-Thomson cryostat, such as disclosed by STUBBS, in addition to the Stirling cryo-engine for the purpose of enabling quick ready times and long ren times, while minimizing size and steady-state head load increases (par. 25). More so, the combination allows for the integration to take advantage of lost refrigeration power from the Joule-Thomson heat exchanger inefficiency to cool the compression side of the Stirling cold head to increase Stirling cooler performance (par.25). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify STUBBS with the teachings of LYSON, for the purpose of for the purpose of enabling quick ready times and long ren times, while minimizing size and steady-state head load increases (par. 25) and allowing for the integration to take advantage of lost refrigeration power from the Joule-Thomson heat exchanger inefficiency to cool the compression side of the Stirling cold head to increase Stirling cooler performance (par.25).
As to claim 20, STUBBS previously taught wherein the liquefied cryogen dispersed within the interior of the cryo-adapter is used as a heat transfer medium for the Joule-Thomson cryostat (col.4, line 57-col.5, line2).
Further, the teachings of STUBBS, as modified by LYONS, provided the integration of the Stirling cryo-engine with the Joule-Thomson cryostat (see rejection of claim 7).
LYONS, further, teaches, wherein the Joule-Thomson cryostat is used to cool the Stirling cryo-engine (par.25).
As such, providing the dispersed liquefied cryogen being used as a heat transfer medium for the Joule-Thomson cryostat, necessarily provides the dispersed liquefied cryogen being used as a heat transfer medium for the Stirling cryo-engine, as well, by cooling through the Joule-Thomson cryostat. For this, the prior art effectively teaches the requirement of the dispersed liquefied cryogen being used as the heat transfer medium for both the Joule-Thomson cryostat and Stirling cryo-engine.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 March, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, in view of the amendments, a new interpretation of STUBBS has been provided within the rejections set forth herein.
At page 10, Applicant argues “element 79 Stubbs does not represent a cryo-adapter” and “the cold end plate 39 doe not represent an end cap forming an interior of a cry-adapter”. Applicant states, “Instead element 79 is a skirt attached to cryo-cooler sleeve 27 of the cryocooler assembly 21” and “As can be seen in Stubbs Fig. 2 and 3, the cold end plate 39 does not contact the cryocooler assembly 21.” First, the “cryo-adapter” and “the cold end plate” are defined as claimed. See MPEP § 2111.01 and § 2173.01. The elements of STUBBS reasonably provide the structures forming the cryo-adapter and the cold end plate, as set forth by the claims. Applicant does not set forth any evidence which structurally differentiates the elements of STUBBS from the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2114 – II. Further, an argument by the applicant is not evidence unless it is an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making a rejection. Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2145 – I. For these reasons, the arguments are not persuasive.
At pages 10-11, Applicant argues “nozzle 29 is not configured to disperse liquefied cryogen into the interior of cryocooler assembly 21”. The claims, as amended, recite “tubing comprising a nozzle that extends through the endcap into the interior of the cryo-adapter, the nozzle configured to disperse liquefied cryogen to the interior of the cryo-adapter”. This is different than what is argued by the Applicant, as the claims are directed to the cryo-adapter not the cryocooler assembly, as argued. See MPEP § 2145 – VI. Furthermore, STUBBS provides tubing(29) comprising a nozzle (opening at end of 29) that extends through the end cap (figure 2-3; through opening, 89; col. 6, line 54- col.7, line 2)into the interior of the cryo-adapter (figure 2-3),the nozzle configured to disperse liquefied cryogen to the interior of the cryo-adapter(col.4, lines 40-42; figure 3). For these reasons, the arguments are not persuasive.
At page 11, Applicant argues, “Element 101 of Stubbs does not represent an exit port…While Stubbs discloses the coolant flows through the skirt gap 101, the coolant is not exiting from the interior of cryocooler assembly 21. Instead, the coolant originates form the skirt coolant plenum 103 formed by the skirt 79, which is external to the cryocooler assembly 21.” The claims recite “wherein the cryo-adapter further comprises an exit port configured to release the liquefied cryogen from the interior of the cryo- adapter.”. This is different than what is argued by the Applicant, as the claims are directed to the cryo-adapter not the cryocooler assembly, as argued. See MPEP § 2145 – VI. Furthermore, STUBBS provides wherein the cryo-adapter further comprises an exit port (101) configured to release the liquefied cryogen from the interior of the cryo-adapter (figures 3; col.7, line 15- 36; col. 8, lines 6-17). For these reasons, the arguments are not persuasive.
At pages 11-12, Applicant argues again, “Stubbs does not disclose or suggest tubing comprising a nozzle that extends through the endcap into the interior of the cryo-adapter, the nozzle configured to disperse liquefied cryogen into the interior of the cryo-adapter. Schultz and Lyons do not remedy the noted deficiencies of Stubbs.” Applicant notes the previous arguments from pages 10-11 of the Applicant’s Remarks/Amendments filed on 11 March, 2026. The previous remarks have been addressed. In addition, Applicant does not set forth any evidence which structurally differentiates the elements of STUBBS from the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2114 – II. Further, an argument by the applicant is not evidence unless it is an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making a rejection. Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2145 – I. For these reasons, the arguments are not persuasive.
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 JENNA M MARONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM to 4PM, EST.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/JENNA M MARONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 3/25/2026
JENNA M. MARONEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763