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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant is advised that the new art unit number is 2692. Please use the new art unit number for all future communications.
This Office action is in response to the Response to Restriction Requirement filed on 2/12/2026.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Election/Restriction
In Applicant’s Response to Election of Species submitted 2/12/2026, Applicant elected with traverse “all alleged species corresponding to Fig. 5A, corresponding to claim 10”. Since Applicant’s election was not of a single species, it was considered an incomplete reply to the requirement, and the Examiner called Applicant’s Representative to discuss the issue, which resulted in the election presented in the paragraph below that supersedes the 2/12/2026 election.
During a telephone conversation with Simon Booth (Reg. No. 58,582) on 2/24/2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Species XIV (Fig. 1B, with Fig. 5B profile, and Fig. 6A top view (see ¶ 0086)), claims 1, 3, 5-11, 14-15, 19, 20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 2, 4, 12-13, 16-18 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
For completeness, the Examiner has addressed the Applicant’s traversal that was set forth in the 2/12/2026 response, below:
The traversal is on the grounds that the species are not proper, and there are too many species. This is not found persuasive because:
Applicant argues (Remarks, page 6) that:
“Applicant disagrees with the Office's position at least in part because the identified species are directed to a single embodiment, with varying breadth or scope of definition. See MPEP § 806.03.”
In response, the examiner submits that Applicant’s-cited MPEP § 806.03 talks about claims being directed to a single embodiment, whereas Applicant’s argument contradictorily talks about species being directed to a single embodiment. The claims are not directed to a single embodiment because as just one non-limiting example, claim 11 defines essential characteristics of an embodiment represented in Figs. 6A/D/E/H and 8A/B/D, whereas claim 12 defines essential characteristics of an embodiment represented in Figs. 6B/C/F/G and 8C. Thus, the claims are not directed to a single embodiment.
Applicant argues (Remarks, page 6) that:
“For example, there is no single claim that encompasses any of the species because, for example, FIG. 5A-5C are related to dependent claims 10-14, and FIGS. 6A-6H are related to dependent claim 15-18. These claims are in different hierarchies and cannot be elected. In other words, no claims correspond to any of the identified specifies.”
In response, the examiner submits that as just one non-limiting example, claims 1, 3, 5-11, 14-15, 19, 20 encompass Species XIV, which is why these claims are being examined in response to the election of Species XIV. These claims thus also correspond to Species XIV.
Additionally, a species is what needs to be elected, rather than a claim, and the claims encompassed by that species are the claims that are examined.
As best understood by examiner, Applicant is using the term hieararchies as another term for genuses. If so, then this means that Applicant wants plural hierarchies examined, as evidenced by claims claiming features associated with plural hierarchies being presented in this application. In order to avoid a restriction involving different hierarchies, in future applications, Applicant could present claims that are only directed to one of plural hierarchies presented in the disclosure, and then the restriction would only focus on species of the single hierarchy presented in the claims.
Applicant argues (Remarks, page 6) that:
“Applicant therefore traverses the election requirement because the Office has not identified distinct inventions and the various features provide "different definitions of the same disclosed subject matter, varying in breadth or scope of definition." MPEP § 806.03.”
In response, the examiner submits that each identified species has at least one combination of features that the other identified species do not.
Applicant argues (Remarks, page 6) that:
“Applicant believes that it would not be a burden to search the additional recitations related to FIGS. 6A-6H.”
In response, the examiner submits that, first, it is noted that the Examiner has searched the recitations related to Fig. 6A because Fig. 6A was part of the elected Species XIV.
Additionally, the additional claimed recitations related to Figs. 6B-6H would require interpreting potential prior art under different interpretations to try to determine whether they cover the different claimed recitations, performing additional searches using different keyword combinations in order to find more prior art in the event that the currently-found prior art was inadequate to cover all the additional claim recitations, and performing a thorough reading of each potential prior art under different interpretations in the case that claims seemed allowable in order to make sure that the claims were allowable so that a second non-final would not have to be done in the event that not enough time was put into reading the potential prior art and the claim was actually not allowable. Thus, searching the additional recitations would be a burden.
Applicant argues (Remarks, page 6) that:
“Moreover, the election is not restricted to a single species because the Office "may require restriction of the claims to not more than a reasonable number of species." 37 CFR §1.146 (emphasis added). A reasonable number of species is plural and requires the Office to examine more than a single species, particularly in light of no single claim corresponding to any of the alleged species.”
In response, the examiner submits that the number of species is a reflection of the number of genuses and embodiments of the application with features being claimed, and 42 species is a reasonable number of species, especially considering there are at least two different genuses being claimed (i.e. the profile of Figs. 5A-5C and the top view of Figs. 6A-H, 8A-D, 9A-D), which results in a multiplication of species.
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) 1, 3, 5, 6, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Duan et al. (US 2021/0051415).
Regarding claim 1, Duan discloses a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) transducer (Abstract), comprising:
a substrate (10) having a top surface (upward-facing surface of 10), a bottom surface (downward-facing surface of 10) opposite the top surface, a bottom surface aperture (portion of one of the through-holes of 10 that is in lie with the downward-facing surface of 10), and a top surface aperture (portion of one of the through-holes of 10 that is in line with the upward-facing surface of 10) (see Fig. 2);
an acoustic cavity (the one of the through-holes of 10) comprising a volume extending from the bottom surface aperture to the top surface aperture (see Fig. 2);
an electroacoustic structure (20) formed at the top surface of the substrate (see Fig. 2), wherein the electroacoustic structure comprises an acoustic layer (¶ 0034: diaphragm 20 senses an acoustic signal), and wherein the acoustic layer has a functional range of motion (¶ 0034: deforms); and
a mechanical overstress protection structure (30) formed over the acoustic layer and positioned to contact the acoustic layer when the acoustic layer approaches or exceeds an end of the functional range of motion deflecting away from the substrate (¶ 0034 and see Figs. 2/5).
Regarding claim 3, Duan discloses the MEMS transducer of claim 1, wherein the electroacoustic structure comprises a piezoelectric MEMS microphone (¶ 0034), and wherein the acoustic layer comprises a plurality of cantilevered piezoelectric beams (21) (¶ 0058 and see Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 5, Duan discloses the MEMS transducer of claim 1, wherein the electroacoustic structure is coupled to the substrate in an first area surrounding the top surface aperture (e.g., Fig. 7: first area can be an area including 13 as well as the trapezoidal-shaped perimeter area of the through-hole of 10; and 211 of 20 is coupled to 13 according to ¶ 0036); and
wherein the mechanical overstress protection structure is coupled to the substrate in a second area surrounding the first area (e.g., Fig. 7: second area can be hexagonal-shaped perimeter area around all six through-holes, and 30 is coupled to this area as seen in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Duan discloses the MEMS transducer of claim 5, wherein the mechanical overstress protection structure is a flat stopper positioned with a gap distance above a neutral position of the electroacoustic structure (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 20, Duan discloses a method of fabricating a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) transducer (Abstract), comprising:
forming a substrate (10) having a top surface (upward-facing surface of 10) and a bottom surface (downward-facing surface of 10) opposite the top surface (see Fig. 2);
forming an acoustic cavity (one of the through-holes of 10) in the substrate to create a top surface aperture (portion of the one of the through-holes of 10 that is in lie with the upward-facing surface of 10) and a bottom surface aperture (portion of the one of the through-holes of 10 that is in lie with the downward-facing surface of 10), wherein the acoustic cavity comprises a volume extending from the bottom surface aperture to the top surface aperture (see Fig. 2);
forming electroacoustic structure (20) including an acoustic layer (¶ 0034: diaphragm 20 senses an acoustic signal) at the top surface of the substrate (see Fig. 2), wherein the acoustic layer has a functional range of motion (¶ 0034: deforms); and
forming a mechanical overstress protection structure (30) positioned over the acoustic layer to contact the acoustic layer when the acoustic layer approaches or exceeds an end of the functional range of motion deflecting away from the substrate (¶ 0034 and see Figs. 2/5).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luo et al. (US 2023/0270010).
Regarding claim 19, Luo discloses a piezoelectric microelectromechanical system (MEMS) device (Fig. 6B and ¶ 0002), comprising:
a substrate (604) having a top surface (upward-facing surface of 604), a bottom surface (downward-facing surface of 604) opposite the top surface, a bottom surface aperture (portion of through-hole of 604 that is in line with the downward-facing surface of 604), and a top surface aperture (portion of through-hole of 604 that is in line with the upward-facing surface of 604) (see Fig. 6B);
an acoustic cavity (through-hole of 604) comprising a volume extending from the bottom surface aperture to the top surface aperture (see Fig. 6B);
a plurality of cantilevered piezoelectric beams (214A-214H) coupled (via 104) to the substrate in a perimeter area around the acoustic cavity and extending into or over the acoustic cavity (see Fig. 6B);
a mechanical overstress protection structure (606 and 608) formed over the plurality of cantilevered piezoelectric beams (see Fig. 6B) and coupled to the substrate in a second area surrounding the perimeter area (Fig. 6B: 606 is coupled to 604 via the vertical segment between 606 and 604), wherein the mechanical overstress protection structure is positioned to contact one or more of the plurality of cantilevered piezoelectric beams as they approach or exceed an upper end of a functional range of motion (¶ 0085 and see Fig. 6B).
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, 6, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo in view of Littrell et al. (US 2019/0289405).
Regarding claim 1, Littrell discloses a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) transducer (Fig. 1), comprising:
a substrate (22) having a top surface (upward-facing surface of 22), a bottom surface (downward-facing surface of 22) opposite the top surface, a bottom surface aperture (portion of 24 that is in line with the downward-facing surface of 22), and a top surface aperture (portion of 24 that is in line with the upward-facing surface of 22) (see Fig. 1);
an acoustic cavity (24) comprising a volume extending from the bottom surface aperture to the top surface aperture (see Fig. 1);
an electroacoustic structure (12) formed at the top surf ace of the substrate (see Fig. 1), wherein the electroacoustic structure comprises an acoustic layer (14), and wherein the acoustic layer has a functional range of motion (Fig. 2 and ¶ 0034: cantilevers 30 (which are part of 12) move in response to acoustic wave by bending up/down); and
Littrell is not relied upon to disclose a mechanical overstress protection structure formed over the acoustic layer and positioned to contact the acoustic layer when the acoustic layer approaches or exceeds an end of the functional range of motion deflecting away from the substrate.
In a similar field of endeavor of piezoelectric cantilevers in a pie-shaped formation, Luo discloses a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) transducer (Fig. 6B and ¶ 0002), comprising:
a substrate (604) having a top surface (upward-facing surface of 604), a bottom surface (downward-facing surface of 604) opposite the top surface, a bottom surface aperture (portion of through-hole of 604 that is in line with the downward-facing surface of 604), and a top surface aperture (portion of through-hole of 604 that is in line with the upward-facing surface of 604) (see Fig. 6B);
an acoustic cavity (through-hole of 604) comprising a volume extending from the bottom surface aperture to the top surface aperture (see Fig. 6B);
an electromechanical structure (214A-214H; or 214A-214H and 104) formed at the top surface of the substrate (see Fig. 6B), wherein the electroacoustic structure comprises an acoustic layer (214A-214H), and wherein the acoustic layer has a functional range of motion (as shown in Fig. 6B); and
a mechanical overstress protection structure (608) formed over the acoustic layer and positioned to contact the acoustic layer when the acoustic layer approaches or exceeds an end of the functional range of motion deflecting away from the substrate (¶ 0085 and see Fig. 6B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add elements 606, 608, and the element between 606 and 604 depicted in Fig. 6B of Luo onto the substrate (22 of Littrell) in the way they are currently on the substrate (604 of Luo),
which would result in: a mechanical overstress protection structure formed over the acoustic layer and positioned to contact the acoustic layer when the acoustic layer approaches or exceeds an end of the functional range of motion deflecting away from the substrate,
the motivation being to: prevent an over deflection of the cantilevers 30 of Littrell during an unintended event, for example, a drop event (Luo - ¶ 0085).
Regarding claim 3, Littrell-Luo discloses the MEMS transducer of claim 1, and Littrell discloses wherein the electroacoustic structure comprises a piezoelectric MEMS microphone (¶ 0031), and wherein the acoustic layer comprises a plurality of cantilevered piezoelectric beams (30) (¶ 0034 and see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Littrell-Luo discloses the MEMS transducer of claim 1, wherein the electroacoustic structure is coupled to the substrate in an first area surrounding the top surface aperture (see Fig. 1 of Littrell); and
wherein the mechanical overstress protection structure is coupled to the substrate in a second area surrounding the first area (see Fig. 6B of Luo).
The teachings of Luo relied upon above are combinable with Littrell-Luo for the same reasons set forth above in the claim 1 rejection.
Regarding claim 6, Littrell-Luo discloses the MEMS transducer of claim 5, and Luo discloses wherein the mechanical overstress protection structure is a flat stopper (608) positioned with a gap distance above a neutral position of the electroacoustic structure (see Fig. 6B).
The teachings of Luo relied upon above are combinable with Littrell-Luo for the same reasons set forth above in the claim 1 rejection.
Regarding claim 20, Littrell discloses a method of fabricating a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) transducer (Fig. 1), comprising:
forming a substrate (22) having a top surface (upward-facing surface of 22) and a bottom surface (downward-facing surface of 22) opposite the top surface (see Fig. 1);
forming an acoustic cavity (24) in the substrate to create a top surface aperture (portion of 24 that is in line with the upward-facing surface of 22) and a bottom surface aperture (portion of 24 that is in line with the downward-facing surface of 22), wherein the acoustic cavity comprises a volume extending from the bottom surface aperture to the top surface aperture (see Fig. 1);
forming electroacoustic structure (12) including an acoustic layer (14) at the top surface of the substrate (see Fig. 1), wherein the acoustic layer has a functional range of motion (Fig. 2 and ¶ 0034: cantilevers 30 (which are part of 12) move in response to acoustic wave by bending up/down); and
Littrell is not relied upon to disclose forming a mechanical overstress protection structure positioned over the acoustic layer to contact the acoustic layer when the acoustic layer approaches or exceeds an end of the functional range of motion deflecting away from the substrate.
In a similar field of endeavor of piezoelectric cantilevers in a pie-shaped formation, Luo discloses a method of fabricating a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) transducer (Fig. 6B and ¶ 0002), comprising:
forming a substrate (604) having a top surface (upward-facing surface of 604) and a bottom surface (downward-facing surface of 604) opposite the top surface (see Fig. 6B);
forming an acoustic cavity (through-hole of 604) in the substrate to create a top surface aperture (portion of through-hole of 604 that is in line with the upward-facing surface of 604) and a bottom surface aperture (portion of through-hole of 604 that is in line with the downward-facing surface of 604), wherein the acoustic cavity comprises a volume extending from the bottom surface aperture to the top surface aperture (see Fig. 6B);
forming electromechanical structure (214A-214H; or 214A-214H and 104) including an acoustic layer (214A-214H) at the top surface of the substrate (see Fig. 6B), wherein the acoustic layer has a functional range of motion (as shown in Fig. 6B); and
forming a mechanical overstress protection structure (608) positioned over the acoustic layer to contact the acoustic layer when the acoustic layer approaches or exceeds an end of the functional range of motion deflecting away from the substrate (¶ 0085 and see Fig. 6B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add elements 606, 608, and the element between 606 and 604 depicted in Fig. 6B of Luo onto the substrate (22 of Littrell) in the way they are currently on the substrate (604 of Luo),
which would result in: forming a mechanical overstress protection structure positioned over the acoustic layer to contact the acoustic layer when the acoustic layer approaches or exceeds an end of the functional range of motion deflecting away from the substrate,
the motivation being to: prevent an over deflection of the cantilevers 30 of Littrell during an unintended event, for example, a drop event (Luo - ¶ 0085).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Littrell in view of Luo in view of Schenk et al. (US 2020/0087138).
Regarding claim 7, Littrell-Luo discloses the MEMS transducer of claim 6, wherein the gap distance is approximately constant
Littrell-Luo is not relied upon to disclose that the gap distance is between 3 and 25 micrometers (um).
In a similar field of endeavor of piezoelectric MEMS microphones (¶ 0002, 0101), Schenk discloses the range of motion (24) for a piezoelectric beam (22) being at the most a value from at least 5 um to 30 um (Fig. 1 and ¶ 0108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the mechanical overstress protection structure to allow the acoustic layer of Littrell-Luo to have a range of motion that is at the most a value from at least 5 um to 30 um, where if the value is 5 um, the gap distance would be between 3 and 25 um in order to prevent over deflection,
the motivation being to prevent an over deflection of the cantilevers 30 of Littrell during an unintended event, for example, a drop event (Luo - ¶ 0085) while allowing for a range of motion that is normal for a beam of a piezoelectric MEMS microphone (Schenk - ¶ 0108).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo in view of Littrell in view of Luo in view of Liu (CN 110519679 using an English machine translation).
Regarding claim 8, Littrell-Luo discloses the MEMS transducer of claim 6.
Littrell-Luo is not relied upon to disclose wherein the mechanical overstress protection structure is fabricated from a material selected from aluminum nitride (AlN), aluminum scandium nitride (AlScN), molybdinum (Mo), silicon nitride (SiN), silicon oxide (SiO2), amorphous silicon (a-Si), polycrystalline silicon, copper (Cu), or nickel (Ni).
In a similar field of endeavor, Liu discloses a mechanical overstress protection structure (30) is fabricated from para-xylene, polyimide, SiN, SiO2, polysilicon (Fig. 1 and page 3, second-to-last paragraph).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to try to fabricate the mechanical overstress protection structure of Luo from any or all of para-xylene, polyimide, SiN, SiO2, polysilicon,
and note that trying any material of or including SiN or SiO2 would result in: wherein the mechanical overstress protection structure is fabricated from a material selected from aluminum nitride (AlN), aluminum scandium nitride (AlScN), molybdinum (Mo), silicon nitride (SiN), silicon oxide (SiO2), amorphous silicon (a-Si), polycrystalline silicon, copper (Cu), or nickel (Ni),
the motivation being to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success to address the issue of what material to fabricate the mechanical overstress protection structure from. See MPEP § 2143(E).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Littrell in view of Luo in view of Suzuki et al. (WO 2022/264654 using an English machine translation).
Regarding claim 9, Littrell-Luo discloses the MEMS transducer of claim 6, and Luo discloses wherein the mechanical overstress protection structure is fabricated with a
The teachings of Luo relied upon above are combinable with Littrell-Luo for the same reasons set forth above in the claim 1 rejection.
Littrell-Luo is not relied upon to disclose wherein the mechanical overstress protection structure is fabricated with a multi-layer structure comprising two or more different materials.
In a similar field of endeavor, Suzuki discloses suitable MEMS materials for a protection structure (3) for a piezoelectric MEMS microphone being a multi-layer structure comprising two or more different materials (silicon oxide 73 and silicon 71) (Fig. 3 and page 5, fifth paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: wherein the mechanical overstress protection structure is fabricated with a multi-layer structure comprising two or more different materials,
the motivation being follow the teaching of Luo to fabricate the mechanical overstress protection structure with any suitable MEMS material using any suitable MEMS processing technique (Luo - ¶ 0085).
Claim(s) 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan in view of Zhou (US 2023/0047687).
Regarding claim 14, Duan discloses the MEMS transducer of claim 5, wherein the mechanical overstress protection structure comprises a
Duan is not relied upon to disclose that the structure is a clamped structure.
In a similar field of endeavor, Zhou discloses a variety of ways that a MEMS component (120) can be connected to a shell structure (110) including by clamping (Fig. 1 and ¶ 0060).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to try to connect the structure of Duan to the substrate (22) of Littrell (which is part of a shell) using any of the variety of ways set forth in Zhou, where using clamping would result in the structure being a clamped structure, the motivation being to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success to address the issue of how to connect a MEMS component to a shell structure. See MPEP § 2143(E).
Regarding claim 15, Duan-Zhou discloses the MEMS transducer of claim 14, and Duan discloses wherein the mechanical overstress protection structure comprises the web with a plurality of beams, wherein each beam is positioned with an opposite beam across the top surface aperture (if the through-hole of 10 in Fig. 3 is the one under the 311 that is pointed to in Fig. 10 (i.e. the upper-most 311 in Fig. 10), then the claimed “plurality of beams” can be the two 314’s that define edges of the lower-most 311 in Fig. 10, and the claimed “opposite beams” can be the beams opposite with respect to 313 (i.e. the two 314’s that define edges of the upper-most 311 in Fig. 10), and wherein the mechanical overstress protection structure further comprises a plurality of radial structures (Fig. 10: 312 and Fig. 11: 315) positioned at different distances (see Fig. 11) from an open central area (definitions of “central” in the Merriam-Webster dictionary include “situated near the center”, and note that although center 313 of 30 is closed, the area 311 near the center (i.e. around the center is open)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 11 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:
In regard to claim 10, the prior art of record alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the following limitations of the claim in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim:
“wherein the mechanical overstress protection structure comprises a plurality of cantilevered stoppers extending over the top surface aperture.”
Claim 11 is/are dependent upon base claims having allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3549. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 1-6, 7:30-11:59pm 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, CAROLYN R EDWARDS can be reached on 571-270-7136. 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.
/MARK FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692