CTNF 18/603,136 CTNF 79520 DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to the election and amendment filed on April 10, 2026. In accordance with this amendment, claims 1-9 have been formally canceled, while new claims 21-29 have been added. Claims 10-29 are pending, and subject to the following non-final rejection, with claims 10, 16, and 21 in independent form. Note that dependent claims 12, 15, and 18 have been “Withdrawn” from consideration as being related to non-elected Species claims. However, claims 12, 15, and 18 should remain “Pending”, because they are all eligible for claim rejoinder upon allowance of an independent claim. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 10-20, in the reply filed on April 10, 2026 is acknowledged. Further, within Group II, Applicant has elected claim 14 and claim 17 in the sub-species outlined in dependent claims. Therefore, claims 12, 15, and 18 have been withdrawn from consideration as being related to non-elected Species claims. However, claims 10 and 16 remain generic and therefore claims 12, 15, and 18 are eligible for rejoinder upon allowance of the independent claim. Additionally, Applicant has added new claims 21-29, which are joined with Group II. Independent claim 21 corresponds substantially to independent claims 10 and 16. 08-06 AIA Claim s 1-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 10, 2026. Applicant has formally canceled these non-elected claims in the amendment dated April 10, 2026. The Examiner appreciates this convenience . 08-23-02 AIA Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention (claims 1-9 have been canceled), the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i). Information Disclosure Statement It is noted that Applicant has not filed an Information Disclosure Statement. If Applicant becomes aware of any prior art that may be pertinent to the examination and analysis of the claimed subject matter, a PTO-1449 form should be filed. Drawings The original drawings (ten (10) pages) were received on March 12, 2024. These drawings are acknowledged. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the 1 st paragraph of the specification must include the most- recent US PTO data. For example, the U.S. Patent No. 11,960,116 B2 (to Shih et al.) must be updated for the U.S. Application Number . Appropriate correction is required. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-20 of Shih et al. U.S. Patent No. 11,960,116 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each feature from claims 10, 16, and 21 is found in the patented claim 16 of the ‘116 patent. The allowed claim 16, and also substantial features found within allowed claim 10, include the key features of claims 10, 16, and 21, which relate to a structure / die that includes two tapering waveguide tip features, in that those feature are smaller at the end thereof, and that the respective tip features from different waveguide(s) are offset from the respective axis of the other waveguide, and in that one sidewall is inclined and the other opposing sidewall is parallel (see Applicant’s Figs. 4A and 5A ). All such features are found within allowed claim 16, and as part of allowed claim 10, and also noting dependent claims 11-15 and 17-20 in the parent patent ‘116. Although the exact same limitations are not found in the parent ‘116 claims, there is no patentable distinction between the pending claims and the allowed claims. Applicant may file a timely terminal disclaimer in order to obviate these NS-DP rejections. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 10, 11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Blauvelt et al. US 2003/0081902 A1 . Blauvelt et al. US 2003/0081902 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1A-1C, 2A-2B, 27A-27B ; corresponding text, notably paragraphs [0184] – [0185]; Claims) a structure (Figs. 1A-1C, 2A-2B, 27A-27B ), comprising: a first waveguide, comprising a first strip portion and a first tapered tip portion connected to the first strip portion, wherein the first tapered tip portion has a first end connected to the first strip portion and a second end opposite to the first end of the first tapered tip portion, and a width of the first end of the first tapered tip portion is greater than a width of the second end of the first tapered tip portion; and a second waveguide, comprising a second strip portion and a second tapered tip portion connected to the second strip portion, wherein the second tapered tip portion has a first end connected to the second strip portion and a second end opposite to the first end of the second tapered tip portion, and a width of the first end of the second tapered tip portion is greater than a width of the second end of the second tapered tip portion; and a center axis of the first strip portion of the first waveguide is offset from a center axis of the second strip portion of the second waveguide; wherein the first tapered tip portion has a first sidewall and a second sidewall opposite to the first sidewall, the first sidewall of the first tapered tip portion is parallel to the center axis of the first strip portion, and the second sidewall of the first tapered tip portion is inclined with respect to the center axis of the first strip portion (see at least Figs. cited above, but notably Figs. 27A-27B which teach that the tapered tip near 2720 has one parallel sidewall (closest to the coupling region) and one inclined sidewall (away from the coupling region); note also that having offset axes is clear from Blauvelt because the tapering tips overlap ), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations of independent claim 10. Regarding dependent claim 11, the two tapering tips (see Figs. 27A-27B) are “spaced apart” by some distance, note the breadth of such terminology, which meets all structure found in this claim. Regarding claim 13, “a” thickness (in other words, any thickness in a BRI) is smaller than “a” thickness (again, any thickness) between two waveguides in Blauvelt. Regarding claim 14, at least an overlapping ( extension past each other) occurs in Blauvelt Figs. 1A-C, 2A-B, and 27A-B, which meets all structure . 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Baba US 2021/0382233 A1. The consideration of the effective filing date for Baba ‘233 is at least as early as June 9, 2020 (to JP-2020 100352) . Baba US 2021/0382233 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 17, 21, 22, 23 , 24-26; corresponding text, notably paragraphs [0164] – [0166]; Claims) a structure (notably Fig. 23 ), comprising: a first waveguide (top), comprising a first strip portion and a first tapered tip portion connected to the first strip portion, wherein the first tapered tip portion has a first end connected to the first strip portion and a second end opposite to the first end of the first tapered tip portion, and a width of the first end of the first tapered tip portion is greater than a width of the second end of the first tapered tip portion; and a second waveguide (bottom), comprising a second strip portion and a second tapered tip portion connected to the second strip portion, wherein the second tapered tip portion has a first end connected to the second strip portion and a second end opposite to the first end of the second tapered tip portion, and a width of the first end of the second tapered tip portion is greater than a width of the second end of the second tapered tip portion (note at least Fig. 23 has slight decreasing width / taper near 20a section); and a center axis of the first strip portion of the first waveguide is offset from a center axis of the second strip portion of the second waveguide; wherein the first tapered tip portion has a first sidewall and a second sidewall opposite to the first sidewall, the first sidewall of the first tapered tip portion is parallel to the center axis of the first strip portion, and the second sidewall of the first tapered tip portion is inclined with respect to the center axis of the first strip portion (see at least Figs. cited above, but notably Fig. 23 which teach that the tapered tip near 418b has one parallel sidewall (closest to the coupling region) and one inclined sidewall (away from the coupling region, at 418b); note also that having offset axes is clear from Baba because the tapering tips overlap ), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations of independent claim 10. Regarding the second independent claim 16, Figs. 2-4 of Baba show the side version in which there is a substrate 11, 1 st dielectric, and 2 nd dielectric feature (6, 6u and 6I) to contain the overall IC die, and in which there is “separation” of the 1 st waveguide and the 2 nd waveguide at the coupling region (as in Fig. 23). Regarding dependent claim 11, the 1 st and 2 nd tapered tips of Fig. 23 in Baba are spaced apart by a distance. Regarding claim 13, the term “thickness” is a frame of reference and is met by Baba’s featured first and second waveguide along some lengths thereof (smaller). Regarding claim 14 and 17, the first and second waveguides are at a same height level and the tips project each other for overlapping (Fig. 23). Regarding claim 20, the waveguides can have different thicknesses depending on frame of reference for “thickness”, therefore all structure is met (cited Figs. above) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,859,765 B2, and further in view of Blauvelt et al. US 2003/0081902 A1 . Regarding independent claims 10 and 16, Park et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,859,765 B2 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1-3, 11-13, 15; corresponding text; in particular column 4, line 19 through column 8, line 54; Claims) teaches all features of these two independent claims (see Figs. 1-3, for example) which relate to a structure / die that includes two tapering waveguide tip features, in that those feature are smaller at the end thereof, and that the respective tip features from different waveguide(s) are offset from the respective axis of the other waveguide. Note also Park Figs. 1-3, which show the substrate, 1 st dielectric, and 2 nd dielectric features covering the waveguide taper regions for the two waveguides 30/32 and 40/42. However, regarding claims 10 and 16, Park ‘765 does not expressly and exactly teach that in the offset and spaced / separated region that one sidewall is inclined and the other opposing sidewall is parallel . Note Applicant’s Figs. 4A and 5A. Blauvelt et al. US 2003/0081902 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1A-1C, 2A-2B, 27A-27B ; corresponding text, notably paragraphs [0184] – [0185]; Claims) a structure (Figs. 1A-1C, 2A-2B, 27A-27B ), comprising: a first waveguide, comprising a first strip portion and a first tapered tip portion connected to the first strip portion, wherein the first tapered tip portion has a first end connected to the first strip portion and a second end opposite to the first end of the first tapered tip portion, and a width of the first end of the first tapered tip portion is greater than a width of the second end of the first tapered tip portion; and a second waveguide, comprising a second strip portion and a second tapered tip portion connected to the second strip portion, wherein the second tapered tip portion has a first end connected to the second strip portion and a second end opposite to the first end of the second tapered tip portion, and a width of the first end of the second tapered tip portion is greater than a width of the second end of the second tapered tip portion; and a center axis of the first strip portion of the first waveguide is offset from a center axis of the second strip portion of the second waveguide; wherein the first tapered tip portion has a first sidewall and a second sidewall opposite to the first sidewall, the first sidewall of the first tapered tip portion is parallel to the center axis of the first strip portion, and the second sidewall of the first tapered tip portion is inclined with respect to the center axis of the first strip portion (see at least Figs. cited above, but notably Figs. 27A-27B which teach that the tapered tip near 2720 has one parallel sidewall (closest to the coupling region) and one inclined sidewall (away from the coupling region); note also that having offset axes is clear from Blauvelt because the tapering tips overlap ). Therefore, Blauvelt teaches how a tapering end waveguide (tip) can include both a parallel surface as well as an inclined surface. Such feature is known to improve coupling and be afforded certain spacing constraints / limitations. Since Park and Blauvelt are both from the same field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by Blauvelt would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Park. A person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized the teaching of Blauvelt, to use a tapering end waveguide (tip) that can include both a parallel surface as well as an inclined surface, into the base design of the structure / IC of Park, to allow for improved coupling features and variations in design to afford optimization of manufacturing methods with decreased costs of materials. Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such feature of the inclined sidewall in combination with a parallel sidewall at a tapering tip region of Park’s waveguide coupler. See KSR v. Teleflex , 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, independent claims 10 and 16 are found obvious over Park and further in view of Blauvelt (henceforth “COMBO”). Regarding dependent claims 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, and 20, COMBO either expressly teaches such features within the usable references themselves (Park and/or Blauvelt), or one having ordinary skill at the time of the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized such integration of secondary optical sub- components as obvious design choices. It would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such features of the dependent claims 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, and 20 into the COMBO featured independent claim 10 and 16. See KSR . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,859,765 B2 and further in view of Blauvelt et al. US 2003/0081902 A1 (as “COMBO”, akin to claims 10 / 16 above), and further in view of Kopp et al. US 2010/0265504 A1 . Regarding independent claim 21, COMBO makes obvious all such structural features (note also the rejections above for independent claims 10 and 16 (in section 18)), but does not expressly and exactly teach that such an IC die further includes a grating coupler embedded in the dielectric structure. Kopp et al. US 2010/0265504 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 4-5; corresponding text; Claims) an integrated design in which tapered waveguide coupling features (such as near 36 and 28 in Fig. 4) are also used with a combined integration opto-electronic design to include “grating coupler(s)”. See the grating coupler 30 integrated with the waveguide features to input tapered sub-componentry. Such designs are known to input signals onto a chip (with the grating coupler) and to output signals off chip by efficient and effective manners using angled coupling (to a fiber, etc. 38 / 40 in Fig. 4). Since COMBO and Kopp are all from the same field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by Kopp would have been recognized in the pertinent art of COMBO. A person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized the teaching of Kopp, to use an integrated grating coupling on chip with the other tapered waveguide tips such as in the base design of the device of COMBO, to allow for a known way to both input/output optical signal to and from a chip in an efficient manner with a coupled optical fiber/cable. Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such feature of having a “grating coupler” embedded with the dielectric structure. Notably, there is no direct integration of components in the claim 21 by such language, just that the grating coupler is “somewhere” in the dielectric. See KSR v. Teleflex , 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, independent claim 21 is found obvious over COMBO and further in view of Kopp. Regarding dependent claims 22-29, COMBO and Kopp expressly teach such features within the usable references themselves (Park and/or Blauvelt and/or Kopp), or one having ordinary skill at the time of the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized such integration of secondary optical sub-components as obvious design choices. It would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such features of the dependent claims 22-29 into the COMBO/Kopp featured independent claim 21. See KSR . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 16, 17, and 19-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blauvelt et al. US 2003/0081902 A1, and further in view of both Park et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,859,765 B2 (for claims 16 and 21) and Kopp et al. US 2010/0265504 A1 (for claim 21) . Regarding claims 16 and 21, Blauvelt et al. US 2003/0081902 A1 teaches all such features as found in claim 10, but regarding the additional features in claim 16, Blauvelt ‘902 does not expressly and exactly the semiconductor, 1 st dielectric, and 2 nd dielectric to encapsulate such features and that the 2 nd waveguide is “separated from” the 1 st waveguide; and regarding claim 21, Blauvelt ‘902 does not teach those elements from claim 16 (as prior listed) as well as having a “grating coupler” embedded in the dielectric structure. Park et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,859,765 B2 (for claims 16 and 21) and Kopp et al. US 2010/0265504 A1 (for claim 21) teach those missing limitations, for the substrate, 1 st dielectric, and 2 nd dielectric, and the separation of the optical waveguides (Park), while Kopp teaches a grating coupler as part of the encompassed chip design. Note also sections (18) – (19) above which lay out such features in Park and Kopp. Since Blauvelt, Park, and Kopp are all from the same field of endeavor, the purposes disclosed by Park and Kopp would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Blauvelt. A person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized the teaching of Kopp and Park, to use an integrated grating coupling on chip with the other tapered waveguide tips, and to have separation and substrate / 1 st dielectric / 2 nd dielectric, as in the base design of the device of Blauvelt, to allow for a known way to both input/output optical signal to and from a chip in an efficient manner with a coupled optical fiber/cable, as well as packaging the components within a dielectric to improve performance. Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such feature of having a “grating coupler” embedded or “substrate, 1 st dielectric, 2 nd dielectric forming such integration with the dielectric structure. Further, there is no direct integration of components in the claim 21 by such language, just that the grating coupler is “somewhere” in the dielectric. See KSR v. Teleflex , 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, independent claim 16 and 21 are found obvious over Blauvelt and further in view of Park and Kopp (henceforth “COMBO2”). Regarding dependent claims 17, 19, 20, and 22-29, COMBO2 expressly teaches such features within the usable references themselves (Park and/or Blauvelt and/or Kopp), or one having ordinary skill at the time of the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized such integration of secondary optical sub-components as obvious design choices. It would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such features of the dependent claims 17, 10, 20, and 22-29 into the COMBO2 featured independent claim 16 and/or 21. See KSR . Inventorship 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. CONCLUSION 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : PTO-892 form references F and G, which pertain to the state of the art of tapered optical waveguide couplers that are on different axes . Applicant should amend features akin to each and every specific sub-componentry of their Figs. 4A and 5A , in consideration of the close “Prior Art” of the current record. The Examiner respectfully notes that frames-of-reference can be applied from the prior art even though the prior art is not identical to Applicant’s embodiment of Figs. 4A and 5A. A timely terminal disclaimer should be filed to the Shih et al. ‘116 patent. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Petkovsek whose telephone number is (571) 272-4174. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 6 PM. 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. /DANIEL PETKOVSEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 June 11, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/603,136 Page 2 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/603,136 Page 3 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/603,136 Page 4 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/603,136 Page 5 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/603,136 Page 6 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/603,136 Page 8 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/603,136 Page 9 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/603,136 Page 10 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/603,136 Page 11 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/603,136 Page 12 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/603,136 Page 13 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/603,136 Page 14 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/603,136 Page 15 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/603,136 Page 16 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/603,136 Page 17 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/603,136 Page 18 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/603,136 Page 19 Art Unit: 2874
Prosecution Insights