DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 03/19/2026 is acknowledged and entered. Claims 1, 3-4, 10-11, 16-18, 21, 24-26, 29, 33, 38-40, 42, 45, and 51 are pending.
Claim 16 has been amended to overcome the previous claim objection, therefore, the previous claim objection of claim 16 is withdrawn.
Claim 33 has been amended to overcome the previous claim objection, therefore, the previous claim objection of claim 33 is withdrawn.
Claim 42 has been amended to overcome the previous claim objection, therefore, the previous claim objection of claim 42 is withdrawn.
Claim 16 has been amended to overcome the previous 112(b) rejection, therefore, the previous 112(b) rejection of claim 16 is withdrawn.
Claim 21 has been amended to overcome the previous 112(b) rejection, therefore, the previous 112(b) rejection of claim 21 is withdrawn.
Regarding Claims 33 and 38, which were previously rejected for the use of the relative term “suitable” to describe a suitable beam splitter, the Applicant has submitted that the Examiner’s understanding concerning the relative term “suitable” is correct (Page 9 of the remarks dated 03/19/2026). Therefore, the interpretation for a suitable beam splitter is merely any element which can split a beam. The previous 112(b) rejections of claims 33 and 38 are withdrawn.
Claim 42 has been amended to overcome the previous 112(b) rejection, therefore, the previous 112(b) rejection of claim 42 is withdrawn.
Regarding Claim 45, which were previously rejected for the use of the relative term “suitable” to describe a suitable optical element, the Applicant has submitted that the Examiner’s understanding concerning the relative term “suitable” is correct (Page 9 of the remarks dated 03/19/2026). Therefore, the interpretation for what a suitable optical element is is merely any element which can provide the function of expanding and collimating the light beam from the light source. The previous 112(b) rejection of claim 45 is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-12, filed 06/24/2026, with respect to claims 1, 25, and 51 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1, 25, and 51 have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 8 of claim 25 recites “…interacting with the object for each the state…” when it should instead recite “…interacting with the object for each [[the]] state…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Beam splitting arrangement in claim 33. Here the word “arrangement” is a generic placeholder for the term “means”, is modified by the functional language “configured to split the measurement beam into two paths”, and further is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Lines 24-29 of page 9 of the specification recites “a suitable beam splitting arrangement configured to split the measurement beam into two paths…”. No specific examples are given for a beam splitting arrangement, therefore, it is unclear what structure is performing the claimed function.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. MPEP 2181 IV recites “A means- (or step-) plus-function limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description and may not be sufficiently enabled to support the full scope of the claim. The principal function of claims is to provide notice of the boundaries of the right to exclude by defining the limits of the invention, and means-plus-function claims rely on the disclosure to define those limits. Accordingly, an inadequate disclosure may give rise to both an indefiniteness rejection for a means-plus-function limitation and a failure to satisfy the written description and enablement requirements of section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph.”
The claim limitation “beam splitting arrangement” (in claim 33) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The only recitation of beam splitting arrangement in the disclosure is in lines 24-29 of page 9 of the specification which recites “a suitable beam splitting arrangement configured to split the measurement beam into two paths…”. However, the specification does not explicitly recite any structure for a beam splitting arrangement.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 25-26, 29, 33, 38-40, 42, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Lines 10-13 of Claim 25 recites the limitation "the measurement beams" in “…a processor configured to use the detected polarization properties of the measurement beam without interacting with the object and after interacting with the object for each state of polarisation of the measurement beams to determine a measurement…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 25 did not previously recite “measurement beams”, therefore, it is unclear what the measurement beams are referring to. It would appear that “measurement beams” should be “measurement beam”.
Claims 26, 29, 33, 38-40, 42, and 45 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 25.
Claim 33 recites the limitation “the measurement beams” in “…detect the polarisation properties of the measurement beams…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “the measurement beams” is referring to the measurement beams as recited in lines 10-13 of claim 25 or each state of polarisation of the measurement beam as claimed in lines 8-9 of claim 25. It would appear that every recitation of “the measurement beams” in claim 33 should instead recite “the measurement beam.”
Regarding Claim 33, the claim limitation “beam splitting arrangement” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The only recitation of beam splitting arrangement in the disclosure is in lines 24-29 of page 9 of the specification which recites “a suitable beam splitting arrangement configured to split the measurement beam into two paths…”. No specific examples are given for a beam splitting arrangement, therefore, it is unclear what structure is performing the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-4, 10-11, 16-18, 21, 24, and 51 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 1, Bo-Zhao et al (“Single-shot Stokes polarimetry enabled by a digital micromirror device”, 2019, Cornell University Library. Bo-Zhao et al was disclosed in the IDS dated 11/25/2024) teaches a method for measuring an optical characteristic of an object (Title: “Single-shot Stokes polarimetry enabled by a digital micromirror device”), wherein the method comprises:
directing a uniformly polarised measurement beam (Shown in Fig. 2 and described on page 3, first paragraph of setup section: A linearly polarized Gaussian beam is converted into a cylindrical vector beam via a q-plate (q = 1/2) in combination with a Half-Wave Plate (HWP1).) onto an object (Fig. 2: E1 or E2 where E1 is a rotating half wave-plate (RHWP) and E2 is a Quarter Wave-Plate in combination with a non-linear crystal (NLC), as described in the caption of Figure 2.);
dividing the measurement beam into a plurality of parallel-propagating sub-beams and setting the polarizations of the sub-beams with respective polarizers with holograms (Fig. 2: Digital Micromirror Device (DMD)) (Shown in Fig. 2 and described in the caption of Fig. 2 which recites that a DMD splits the measurement beam into four identical copies which are propagated along parallel paths using lenses L1 and L2.);
detecting polarisation properties of the measurement beam after interacting with an object (Fig. 1: E1 or E2) for each state of polarization of the measurement beam (Shown in Fig. 2 and described in the caption of Fig. 2 where the measurement beam interacts with object E1 or E2, then the measurement beam is polarized by polarizers P1, P2, and P3 and QWP2 which is then detected by the CCD.); and
using the detected polarization properties of the measurement beam after interacting with the object for each state of polarization to determine a measurement of at least one optical characteristic (state of polarization from Abstract) of the object (Fig. 2: E1 or E2) (Abstract: State of polarization is measured as shown in Fig. 2.; Details further described in the caption of Fig. 2).
Bo-Zhao et al, in the embodiment of Fig. 2, appears to be silent to rotating the state of polarisation of the measurement beam with holograms.
However, Bo-Zhao et al, does disclose that standard polarimetry is traditionally done by recording intensities at different times and one by one (shown in Fig. 1(a) and described on page 2, last paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have known that rotating the state of polarisation of the measurement beam with holograms so that measurements are taken one by one and at different times is a possible configuration.
Bo-Zhao et al does not teach detecting polarisation properties of the measurement beam without interacting with the object; and
using the detected polarization properties of the measurement beam without interacting with the object and after interacting with the object for each state of the polarisation to determine a measurement of at least one optical characteristic of the object. Bo-Zhao et al does disclose that a calibration image is record to reconstruct the vector beam’s polarization using the experimental setup as shown in Fig. 2 and described on page 3, first paragraph. However, the set up as shown in Fig. 2 does not disclose a setup where there is no object (E1 or E2), therefore, Bo-Zhao et al does not disclose measurements taken without an object.
Therefore, as to Claim 1, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method for measuring an optical characteristic of an object, wherein the method comprises detecting polarisation properties of the measurement beam without interacting with the object; and
using the detected polarization properties of the measurement beam without interacting with the object and after interacting with the object for each state of the polarisation to determine a measurement of at least one optical characteristic of the object, in combination with the rest of the limitations in Claim 1.
Claims 3-4, 10-11, 16-18, 21 and 24 are allowed by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Regarding Claim 51, Bo-Zhao et al (“Single-shot Stokes polarimetry enabled by a digital micromirror device”, 2019, Cornell University Library. Bo-Zhao et al was disclosed in the IDS dated 11/25/2024) teaches a method for measuring an optical characteristic of an object (Title: “Single-shot Stokes polarimetry enabled by a digital micromirror device”), wherein the method comprises:
a) generating a uniformly polarised initial measurement beam having an initial polarisation state (Shown in Fig. 2 and described on page 3, first paragraph of setup section: A linearly polarized Gaussian beam is converted into a cylindrical vector beam via a q-plate (q = 1/2) in combination with a Half-Wave Plate (HWP1).);
b) directing the initial measurement beam onto an object (Fig. 2: E1 or E2 where E1 is a rotating half wave-plate (RHWP) and E2 is a Quarter Wave-Plate in combination with a non-linear crystal (NLC), as described in the caption of Figure 2.);
c) detecting polarization properties of the initial measurement beam after interacting with the object (Shown in Fig. 2 and described in the caption of Fig. 2 where the measurement beam interacts with object E1 or E2, then the measurement beam is polarized by polarizers P1, P2, and P3 and QWP2 which is then detected by the CCD.);
d) generating a uniformly polarised subsequent/second measurement beam having a subsequent polarisation state by way of a hologram, wherein the subsequent polarisation state is rotated from the initial polarisation state and/or any preceding polarisation state of the measurement beam by way of the hologram (shown in Fig. 2 where DMD splits the measurement beam into four identical copies which are then polarized by polarizers P1, P2, P3, and QWP2.);
e) directing the subsequent measurement beam towards a CCD (shown in Fig. 2)
f) detecting polarization properties of the subsequent measurement beam after interacting with the object (Shown in Fig. 2 and described in the caption of Fig. 2 where the measurement beam interacts with object E1 or E2, then the measurement beam is polarized by polarizers P1, P2, and P3 and QWP2 which is then detected by the CCD.).
Bo-Zhao et al does not teach detecting polarisation properties of the initial measurement beam without interacting with the object; and
f) detecting polarization properties of the subsequent measurement beam without interacting with the object and after interacting with the object;
g) repeating steps d to f) for a predetermined number of times; and
h) using the detected polarization properties of the initial and subsequent/second measurement beams without interacting with the object and after interacting with the object to determine a measurement of at least one optical characteristic of the object. Bo-Zhao et al does disclose that a calibration image is record to reconstruct the vector beam’s polarization using the experimental setup as shown in Fig. 2 and described on page 3, first paragraph. However, the set up as shown in Fig. 2 does not disclose a setup where there is no object (E1 or E2), therefore, Bo-Zhao et al does not disclose measurements taken without an object.
Therefore, as to Claim 51, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method for measuring an optical characteristic of an object, wherein the method comprises detecting polarisation properties of the initial measurement beam without interacting with the object; and
f) detecting polarization properties of the subsequent measurement beam without interacting with the object and after interacting with the object;
g) repeating steps d to f) for a predetermined number of times; and
h) using the detected polarization properties of the initial and subsequent/second measurement beams without interacting with the object and after interacting with the object to determine a measurement of at least one optical characteristic of the object, in combination with the rest of the limitations in Claim 51.
Claims 25-26, 29, 33, 38-40, 42, and 45 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding Claim 25, Bo-Zhao et al (“Single-shot Stokes polarimetry enabled by a digital micromirror device”, 2019, Cornell University Library. Bo-Zhao et al was disclosed in the IDS dated 11/25/2024) teaches a system for measuring an optical characteristic of an object, wherein the system comprises:
a beam generating arrangement comprising a holographic device (Fig. 2: DMD), wherein the beam generating arrangement is configured to generate and direct a uniformly polarised measurement beam (Fig. 2 caption: DMD splits the beam into four identical copies.) onto an object (Fig. 2: E1 or E2 where E1 is a rotating half wave-plate (RHWP) and E2 is a Quarter Wave-Plate in combination with a non-linear crystal (NLC), as described in the caption of Figure 2.), wherein the holographic device is configured to divide the measurement beam into a plurality of parallel-propagating sub-beams and setting the polarizations of the sub-beams with respective polarizers with holograms (Fig. 2: Digital Micromirror Device (DMD)) (Shown in Fig. 2 and described in the caption of Fig. 2 which recites that a DMD splits the measurement beam into four identical copies which are propagated along parallel paths using lenses L1 and L2.);
a detector arrangement (Fig. 2: CCD) configured to detect polarisation properties of the measurement beam after interacting with an object (Fig. 1: E1 or E2) for each state of polarization of the measurement beam (Shown in Fig. 2 and described in the caption of Fig. 2 where the measurement beam interacts with object E1 or E2, then the measurement beam is polarized by polarizers P1, P2, and P3 and QWP2 which is then detected by the CCD.); and
a processor (There would necessarily be a processor to do the following steps.) configured to use the detected polarization properties of the measurement beams after interacting with the object (Fig. 2: E1 or E2) for each state of polarisation of the measurement beams to determine a measurement of at least one optical characteristic (state of polarization from Abstract) (Abstract: State of polarization is measured as shown in Fig. 2.; Details further described in the caption of Fig. 2.).
Bo-Zhao et al, in the embodiment of Fig. 2, appears to be silent to rotating a state of polarisation of the measurement beam with holograms.
However, Bo-Zhao et al, does disclose that standard polarimetry is traditionally done by recording intensities at different times and one by one (shown in Fig. 1(a) and described on page 2, last paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have known that rotating the state of polarisation of the measurement beam with holograms so that measurements are taken one by one and at different times is a possible configuration.
Bo-Zhao et al does not teach detecting polarisation properties of the measurement beam without interacting with the object; and
using the detected polarization properties of the measurement beam without interacting with the object and after interacting with the object for each state of the polarisation to determine a measurement of at least one optical characteristic of the object. Bo-Zhao et al does disclose that a calibration image is record to reconstruct the vector beam’s polarization using the experimental setup as shown in Fig. 2 and described on page 3, first paragraph. However, the set up as shown in Fig. 2 does not disclose a setup where there is no object (E1 or E2), therefore, Bo-Zhao et al does not disclose measurements taken without an object.
Therefore, as to Claim 25, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a system for measuring an optical characteristic of an object, wherein the system comprises a detector arrangement configured to detect polarisation properties of the measurement beam without interacting with the object for each state of polarisation of the measurement beam; and a processor configured to use the detected polarisation properties of the measurement beams without interacting with the object and after interacting with the object for each state of polarisation of the measurement beams to determine a measurement of at least one optical characteristic of the object, in combination with the rest of the limitations in Claim 25.
Claims 26, 29, 33, 38-40, 42, and 45 would be allowed by virtue of their dependence on claim 25.
Other References Cited but not Considered
Matsubara (US 20110216296 A1), related to a hologram apparatus, teaches in Fig. 5 a polarization state adjusting unit 194 that is connected to hologram 1100.
Fiolka (US20120092669), related to a measurement method and system for measuring birefringence, teaches that the input polarization state of the measurement beam is modulated into at least four different measurement states (Abstract).
Asfour (US20090219590) teaches method and apparatus for production of polarization holograms.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUDY DAO TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0085. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9:30am-5:00pm 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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/JUDY DAO TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights