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 .
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 1-3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 2024/0105746), in view of Meng et al. (US 2025/0102355).
Regarding claim 1, Jeon discloses an image sensor (Figures 3, 4, 6C and 6D), comprising:
a first pixel ([0050] discloses: 210, color separation region), a second pixel ([0050] discloses: 220, color separation region), a third pixel ([0050] discloses: 240, color separation region), and a fourth pixel ([0050] discloses: 230, color separation region), wherein
each of the first, second, third, and fourth pixels comprises:
a sensor layer ([0042] discloses: 110, first light sensing cell, 120, second light sensing cell, 140, fourth light sensing cell, and 130, third light sensing cell, respectively);
a first meta-surface layer ([0025] discloses: NP1, fist nano post) with a first meta-pillar ([0043] discloses: P1, first pixel, see Figure 6D) and disposed over the
sensor layer (Figure 3 depicts: NP1, first nano post, disposed over 110, first light sensing cell; Examiner notes that each color separation region has an NP1, first nano post, layer, see Figure 6C); and
a second meta-surface layer ([0025] discloses: NP2, second nano post) with a second meta-pillar ([0062] discloses: p5, second nano post, see Figure 6D),
wherein the first pixel and the third pixel are diagonally arranged (Figure 6D depicts: 210, color separation region and 240, color separation region, as diagonally arranged), and the second pixel and the fourth pixel are diagonally arranged (Figure 6D depicts: 220, color separation region and 230, color separation region, as diagonally arranged).
Jeon fails to disclose a device with a second meta-surface layer disposed over the first meta-surface layer. Jeon and Meng are related because both disclose image sensors with meta-surface layers.
Meng teaches a device with a second meta-surface layer disposed over the first meta-surface layer ([0153] teaches: 13, second metasuface layer, disposed over 11, first metasurface layer, see Fig. 41).
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 Jeon in view of Meng and provide a device with a second meta-surface layer disposed over the first meta-surface layer. Doing so would allow for color separation and polarization separation functions to be implemented by different metasurface layers, thereby increasing imaging information and improving imaging quality.
Regarding claim 3, Jeon discloses the image sensor as claimed in claim 1, wherein:
a first horizontal line (see annotated Figure A below) and a first vertical line (see annotated Figure A below) cross each other in a center of the first pixel (see annotated Figure A below),
the first horizontal line (see annotated Figure A below) and a second vertical line (see annotated Figure A below) cross each other in a center of the second pixel (see annotated Figure A below),
a second horizontal line (see annotated Figure A below) and the second vertical line cross each other in a center of the third pixel (see annotated Figure A below), and
the second horizontal line and the first vertical line cross each other in a center of the fourth pixel (see annotated Figure A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
717
917
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A
Regarding claim 2, Jeon discloses the image sensor as claimed in claim 1.
Jeon fails to explicitly disclose an image sensor wherein the first meta-pillar and the second meta-pillar each has a diameter not greater than a half of a width of each of the first, second, third, and fourth pixels. However, optimizing the size of the meta-pillar relative to the image sensor is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. ”In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. ”In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Jeon discusses in [0045]–[0046] that the size, position and arrangement of the nano-posts are selected to control the phase of incident light and condense desired wavelength bands onto corresponding sensing cells and establishes the size of the meta-pillars as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Doing so would allow the selecting of a sub-pixel/subwavelength post size compatible with Jeon’s nano-prism structure and pixel pitch. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to disclose an image sensor wherein the first meta-pillar and the second meta-pillar each has a diameter not greater than a half of a width of each of the first, second, third, and fourth pixels since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 20, Jeon discloses the image sensor as claimed in claim 1.
Jeon fails to disclose a device wherein a distance between any two adjacent ones of the first meta-pillar of each of the first, second, third, and fourth pixels is greater than 50 nm, and a distance between any two adjacent ones of the second meta-pillar of each of the first, second, third, and fourth pixels is greater than 50 nm. However, optimizing the spacing of the meta-pillar relative to other meta pillars is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. ”In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. ”In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Jeon discusses in [0045]–[0046] that the size, position and arrangement of the nano-posts are selected to control the phase of incident light and condense desired wavelength bands onto corresponding sensing cells and establishes the size of the meta-pillars as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Doing so would allow adjacent nano-posts to remain physically separated and manufacturable in the nano-prism pattern, thereby predictably providing spaced-apart first and second meta-pillars. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to disclose a device wherein a distance between any two adjacent ones of the first meta-pillar of each of the first, second, third, and fourth pixels is greater than 50 nm, and a distance between any two adjacent ones of the second meta-pillar of each of the first, second, third, and fourth pixels is greater than 50 nm since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 2024/0105746), in view of Meng et al. (US 2025/0102355), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Leem et al. (US 2020/0296296).
Regarding claim 4, Jeon discloses the image sensor as claimed in claim 3.
Jeon fails to disclose a device wherein a first sensing wavelength of the first pixel is less than a second sensing wavelength of the second pixel, wherein the second sensing wavelength of the second pixel is less than a third sensing wavelength of the third pixel, and wherein a fourth sensing wavelength of the fourth pixel is equal to the second sensing wavelength of the second pixel. Jeon and Leem are related because both disclose optical filters.
Leem teaches a device (Figure 4 depicts: 100, visible light sensor, with first pixel= Blue, second pixel=green, third pixel=red and fourth pixel=green) wherein a first sensing wavelength of the first pixel is less than a second sensing wavelength of the second pixel (Examiner notes that blue wavelength is less than green wavelength), wherein the second sensing wavelength of the second pixel is less than a third sensing wavelength of the third pixel (Examiner notes that green wavelength is less than red wavelength), and wherein a fourth sensing wavelength of the fourth pixel is equal to the second sensing wavelength of the second pixel (Examiner notes that the second and fourth pixel are both green wavelength).
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 Jeon in view of Leen and provide a device wherein a first sensing wavelength of the first pixel is less than a second sensing wavelength of the second pixel, wherein the second sensing wavelength of the second pixel is less than a third sensing wavelength of the third pixel, and wherein a fourth sensing wavelength of the fourth pixel is equal to the second sensing wavelength of the second pixel. Doing so would allow for the image sensor to sense color information using a known color pixel arrangement, thereby improving the overall functionality and performance of the color filter.
Regarding claim 6, Jeon discloses the image sensor as claimed in claim 4, wherein:
a first vector component V1 in a first direction and a second vector component V2 in a second direction from the center of the second pixel to a center of the first meta-pillar of the second pixel satisfy V1≤0.25∙P and V2≤0.25∙P, wherein V1 is an absolute value of the first vector component, V2 is an absolute value of the second vector component, and P is a width of the second pixel (Examiner notes that the first vector component V1 is zero because the center of the first meta pillar of the second pixel is aligned with the center of the second pixel in the first direction; therefore |V1| = 0, and 0 is not greater than 0.25∙P; the second vector component V2 is zero because the center of the first meta pillar of the second pixel is aligned with the center of the second pixel in the second direction, therefore |V2| = 0, and 0 is not greater than 0.25∙P; so the vector components in each direction are zero), and
a third vector component V3 in the first direction and a fourth vector component V4 in the second direction from the center of the fourth pixel to a center of the first meta-pillar of the fourth pixel satisfyV3=-V2 and V4=-V1(Because V1 and V2 are zero, V3 and V4 are also zero; so the vector components in each direction are zero).
Claims 8-9, 11-13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 2024/0105746), in view of Meng et al. (US 2025/0102355), as applied to claim 3 above, in view of Lu et al. (US 2010/0289885).
Regarding claim 8, Jeon discloses the image sensor as claimed in claim 3.
Jeon fails to disclose a device wherein a first sensing wavelength of the first pixel is less than a second sensing wavelength of the second pixel, wherein the second sensing wavelength of the second pixel is less than a third sensing wavelength of the third pixel, and wherein the third sensing wavelength of the third pixel is less than a fourth sensing wavelength of the fourth pixel. However, optimizing pixel layout and wavelength is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. ”In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. ”In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Lu discusses in [0022] replacing one green pixel with an infrared pixel to provide infrared sensing in addition to visible color sensing and establishes the replacing a green with an infrared pixel as an obvious optimization choice. Doing so would allow Jeons image sensor to sense visible color information and infrared information using a known Bayer derived pixel arrangement, thereby resulting in first, second, third and fourth pixels having increasing sensing wavelengths. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to disclose a device wherein a first sensing wavelength of the first pixel is less than a second sensing wavelength of the second pixel, wherein the second sensing wavelength of the second pixel is less than a third sensing wavelength of the third pixel, and wherein the third sensing wavelength of the third pixel is less than a fourth sensing wavelength of the fourth pixel since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 9, Jeon discloses the image sensor as claimed in claim 8, wherein:
a distance from a center of the first meta-pillar of the first pixel to the first vertical line and a distance from the center of the first meta-pillar of the first pixel to the first horizontal line are not greater than a quarter of a width of the first pixel (Examiner notes that all three points are the same and the center of the respective pixel, see annotated Figure A above),
a distance from a center of the first meta-pillar of the second pixel to the second vertical line and a distance from the center of the first meta-pillar of the second pixel to the first horizontal line are not greater than a quarter of a width of the second pixel (Examiner notes that all three points are the same and the center of the respective pixel, see annotated Figure A above),
a distance from a center of the first meta-pillar of the third pixel to the second vertical line and a distance from the center of the first meta-pillar of the third pixel to the second horizontal line are not greater than a quarter of a width of the third pixel (Examiner notes that all three points are the same and the center of the respective pixel, see annotated Figure A above), and
a distance from a center of the first meta-pillar of the fourth pixel to the first vertical line and a distance from the center of the first meta-pillar of the fourth pixel to the second horizontal line are not greater than a quarter of a width of the fourth pixel (Examiner notes that all three points are the same and the center of the respective pixel, see annotated Figure A above).
Regarding claim 11, Jeon discloses the image sensor as claimed in claim 8, wherein:
a first vector component V1 in a first direction and a second vector component V2 in a second direction from the center of the first pixel to a center of the first meta-pillar or the second meta-pillar of the first pixel satisfy V1≤0.25∙P1 and V2≤0.25∙P1, wherein V1 is an absolute value of the first vector component, V2 is an absolute value of the second vector component, and P1 is a width of the first pixel (Examiner notes that the first vector component V1 is zero because the center of the first meta pillar of the first pixel is aligned with the center of the first pixel in the first direction; therefore |V1| = 0, and 0 is not greater than 0.25∙P; the second vector component V2 is zero because the center of the first meta pillar of the first pixel is aligned with the center of the first pixel in the second direction, therefore |V2| = 0, and 0 is not greater than 0.25∙P so the vector components in each direction are zero), and
a third vector component V3 in the first direction and a fourth vector component V4 in the second direction from the center of the second pixel to a center of the first meta-pillar or the second meta-pillar of the second pixel satisfyV3≤0.25∙P2 and V4≤0.25∙P2, wherein V3 is an absolute value of the third vector component, V4 is an absolute value of the fourth vector component, and P2 is a width of the second pixel (Examiner notes that the third vector component V3 is zero because the center of the first meta pillar of the second pixel is aligned with the center of the second pixel in the first direction; therefore |V3| = 0, and 0 is not greater than 0.25∙P2; the fourth vector component V4 is zero because the center of the first meta pillar of the second pixel is aligned with the center of the second pixel in the second direction, therefore |V4| = 0, and 0 is not greater than 0.25∙P3; so the vector components in each direction are zero).
Regarding claim 12, Jeon discloses the image sensor as claimed in claim 11, wherein:
a fifth vector component V5 in the first direction and a sixth vector component V6 in the second direction from the center of the third pixel to a center of the first meta-pillar or the second meta-pillar of the third pixel satisfy V5≤0.25∙P3 and V6≤0.25∙P3, wherein V5 is an absolute value of the fifth vector component, V6 is an absolute value of the sixth vector component, and P3 is a width of the third pixel (Examiner notes that the fifth vector component V5 is zero because the center of the first meta pillar of the third pixel is aligned with the center of the third pixel in the first direction; therefore |V5| = 0, and 0 is not greater than 0.25∙P3; the sixth vector component V6 is zero because the center of the first meta pillar of the third pixel is aligned with the center of the third pixel in the second direction, therefore |V6| = 0, and 0 is not greater than 0.25∙P3; so the vector components in each direction are zero), and
a seventh vector component V7 in the first direction and a eighth vector component V8 in the second direction from the center of the fourth pixel to a center of the first meta-pillar or the second meta-pillar of the fourth pixel satisfyV7≤0.25∙P4 and V8≤0.25∙P4, wherein V7 is an absolute value of the seventh vector component, V8 is an absolute value of the eighth vector component, and P4 is a width of the fourth pixel (Examiner notes that the seventh vector component V7 is zero because the center of the first meta pillar of the fourth pixel is aligned with the center of the fourth pixel in the first direction; therefore |V7| = 0, and 0 is not greater than 0.25∙P4; the eighth vector component V8 is zero because the center of the first meta pillar of the fourth pixel is aligned with the center of the fourth pixel in the second direction, therefore |V8| = 0, and 0 is not greater than 0.25∙P4; so the vector components in each direction are zero).
Regarding claim 13, Jeon discloses the image sensor as claimed in claim 8, wherein:
a distance from a center of the first meta-pillar of the first pixel to the first vertical line is not greater than a quarter of a width of the first pixel and is equal to a distance from the center of the first meta-pillar of the first pixel to the first horizontal line (Examiner notes that all three points are the same and the center of the respective pixel, see annotated Figure A above), a distance from a center of the first meta-pillar of the second pixel to the second vertical line is not greater than a quarter of a width of the second pixel and is equal to a distance from the center of the first meta-pillar of the second pixel to the first horizontal line (Examiner notes that all three points are the same and the center of the respective pixel, see annotated Figure A above),
a distance from a center of the first meta-pillar of the third pixel to the second vertical line is not greater than a quarter of a width of the third pixel and is equal to a distance from the center of the first meta-pillar of the third pixel to the second horizontal line (Examiner notes that all three points are the same and the center of the respective pixel, see annotated Figure A above), and
a distance from a center of the first meta-pillar of the fourth pixel to the first vertical line is not greater than a quarter of a width of the fourth pixel and is equal to a distance from the center of the first meta-pillar of the fourth pixel to the second horizontal line (Examiner notes that all three points are the same and the center of the respective pixel, see annotated Figure A above).
Regarding claim 16, Jeon discloses the image as claimed in claim 8, wherein:
a first vector component V1 in a first direction and a second vector component V2 in a second direction from the center of the first pixel to a center of the first meta-pillar or the second meta-pillar of the first pixel satisfy V1=V2≤0.25∙P1, wherein V1 is an absolute value of the first vector component, V2 is an absolute value of the second vector component, and P1 is a width of the first pixel (Examiner notes that the first vector component V1 is zero because the center of the first meta pillar of the first pixel is aligned with the center of the second pixel in the first direction; therefore |V1| = 0; the second vector component V2 is zero because the center of the first meta pillar of the first pixel is aligned with the center of the first pixel in the second direction, therefore |V2| = 0 = |V1|, and 0 is not greater than 0.25∙P1 so the vector components in each direction are zero), and
a third vector component V3 in the first direction and a fourth vector component V4 in the second direction from the center of the second pixel to a center of the first meta-pillar or the second meta-pillar of the second pixel satisfyV3=V4≤0.25∙P2, wherein V3 is an absolute value of the third vector component, V4 is an absolute value of the fourth vector component, and P2 is a width of the second pixel (Examiner notes that the third vector component V3 is zero because the center of the first meta pillar of the second pixel is aligned with the center of the second pixel in the first direction; therefore |V3| = 0,; the fourth vector component V4 is zero because the center of the first meta pillar of the second pixel is aligned with the center of the second pixel in the second direction, therefore |V4| = 0 = |V3|, and 0 is not greater than 0.25∙P2; so the vector components in each direction are zero).
Regarding claim 17, Jeon discloses the image sensor as claimed in claim 16, wherein:
a fifth vector component V5 in the first direction and a sixth vector component V6 in the second direction from the center of the third pixel to a center of the first meta-pillar or the second meta-pillar of the third pixel satisfy V5=V6≤0.25∙P3, wherein V5 is an absolute value of the fifth vector component, V6 is an absolute value of the sixth vector component, and P3 is a width of the third pixel (Examiner notes that the fifth vector component V5 is zero because the center of the first meta pillar of the third pixel is aligned with the center of the third pixel in the first direction; therefore |V5| = 0, the sixth vector component V6 is zero because the center of the first meta pillar of the third pixel is aligned with the center of the third pixel in the second direction, therefore |V6| = 0 = |V5|, and 0 is not greater than 0.25∙P3; so the vector components in each direction are zero), and
a seventh vector component V7 in the first direction and a eighth vector component V8 in the second direction from the center of the fourth pixel to a center of the first meta-pillar or the second meta-pillar of the fourth pixel satisfyV7=V8≤0.25∙P4, wherein V7 is an absolute value of the seventh vector component, V8 is an absolute value of the eighth vector component, and P4 is a width of the fourth pixel (Examiner notes that the seventh vector component V7 is zero because the center of the first meta pillar of the fourth pixel is aligned with the center of the fourth pixel in the first direction; therefore |V7| = 0; the eighth vector component V8 is zero because the center of the first meta pillar of the fourth pixel is aligned with the center of the fourth pixel in the second direction, therefore |V8| = 0 = |V7|, and 0 is not greater than 0.25∙P4; so the vector components in each direction are zero).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, 10, 14-15 and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, the prior art fails to teach or suggest “a distance from a center of the second meta-pillar of the first pixel to the first vertical line is not greater than a quarter of the width of the first pixel and a distance from a center of the second meta-pillar of the third pixel to the second vertical line is not greater than a quarter of the width of the third pixel” along with the structural limitations positively recited in claims 5, 4, 3 and 1 in a manner that would support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103, based on the prior art of record and the search requirements of MPEP § 904.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art fails to teach or suggest “V5≤0.25∙P and V6≤0.25∙P” along with the other structural limitations positively recited in claim 7, 6, 4, 3 and 1 in a manner that would support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103, based on the prior art of record and the search requirements of MPEP § 904.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art fails to teach or suggest “a distance from a center of the second meta-pillar of the first pixel to the first vertical line and a distance from the center of the second meta-pillar of the first pixel to the first horizontal line are not greater than a quarter of the width of the first pixel and a distance from a center of the second meta-pillar of the fourth pixel to the first vertical line and a distance from the center of the second meta-pillar of the fourth pixel to the second horizontal line are not greater than a quarter of the width of the fourth pixel” along with the other structural limitations positively recited in claim 10, 9, 8, 3 and 1 in a manner that would support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103, based on the prior art of record and the search requirements of MPEP § 904.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art fails to teach or suggest “a distance from a center of the second meta-pillar of the first pixel to the first vertical line is not greater than a quarter of the width of the first pixel, a distance from a center of the second meta-pillar of the second pixel to the second vertical line is not greater than a quarter of the width of the second pixel” along with the other structural limitations positively recited in claim 14, 13, 8, 3, and 1 in a manner that would support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103, based on the prior art of record and the search requirements of MPEP § 904.
Claim 15 is dependent on claim 14 and therefore allowable for at least the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art fails to teach or suggest “V1>0andV2<0 or satisfy V1<0andV2>0 and V5>0andV6<0 or satisfy V5<0andV6>0” along with the structural limitations positively recited in claim 18 17, 16, 8, 3 and 1 in a manner that would support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103, based on the prior art of record and the search requirements of MPEP § 904.
Claim 19 is dependent on claim 18 and therefore allowable for at least the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Mikkonen et al. (US 7,746,396) discloses an image sensor but fails to disclose a meta-layer, Seo et al. (US 12,652,876) discloses an image sensor but fails to disclose a meta-layer and claimed structure.
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 - Friday 4:30 -10/12-6:30 (CT).
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.
John Sipes
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights