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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimers filed on January 23, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration dates of Patent Number 12,504,385 or of any patent granted on Application Number 18/694,001 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed January 23, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending. All prior double patenting rejections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been overcome.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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: processing device in claims 1 and 13.
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.
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 § 103
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.
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, 2 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wieser (US20120033066A1) in view of Cohen-Sabban (US20020075484A1) and Engel (US20140043469A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wieser teaches an inspection system for analyzing defects in a product, in particular a printed circuit board product, a semiconductor wafer or the like (paragraph [0001] discloses the device is used to measure and tests a product, particularly a printed circuit board), the inspection system comprising a projection device (paragraph [0014] discloses a projector), an optical detection device (3, Fig. 1) and a processing device (paragraph [0033] discloses the optical detection device has a processor), the projection device having at least one spectrometer member (paragraph [0014] discloses the projector includes a spectrometer member; 2, Fig. 1) configured to split white light into its spectral components and project a multichromatic light beam thus formed from monochromatic light beams onto a product at an angle of incidence β (paragraph [0077] discloses a varying angle of incidence, γ), the optical detection device having a detection unit comprising an area scan camera (paragraph [0028] discloses the camera may be an scan camera), the area scan camera being configured to detect the multichromatic light beam reflected on the product in a detection plane of the detection unit (paragraph [0028]), the detection plane being perpendicular to a product surface of the product (Fig. 1 depicts the camera, 3, being perpendicular to the product surface, 5), the reflected multichromatic light beam being projectable onto an image plane of the area scan camera (Wieser doesn't disclose an image plane, however it is the position of the examiner that the image would inherently have an image plane), the processing device being configured to derive a height information of the product surface from a spatial distribution of saturation values of the reflected multichromatic light beam in the image plane (paragraph [0033] discloses the camera includes a processor which can directly calculate height from hue; paragraph [0033] also discloses the camera can be calculated to use any of hue, saturation, or intensity to calculate height), a position of the optical detection unit relative to the product (paragraph [0045] discloses finding the height as the camera is scanned (the scanning motion would move the camera)) and the angle of incidence β (paragraph [0075] discloses varying the angle of incidence and finding height measurement).
Wieser fails to teach an objective, and a dispersive or diffractive element disposed in the detection plane in the objective or between the objective and the product, the dispersive or diffractive element splitting the multichromatic beam reflected by the object.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical imaging of an object, Cohen-Sabban teaches an objective (50, Fig. 1) being included in the optical detection device (14, Fig. 1).
Cohen-Saban discloses objectives are used to ensure a constant magnification (paragraph [0026]), therefore improving image accuracy. Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of Wieser with the objective taught in Cohen-Sabban to ensure constant magnification and improve accuracy.
Wieser as modified by Cohen-Saban fails to teach a dispersive or diffractive element disposed in the detection plane in the objective or between the objective and the product, the dispersive or diffractive element splitting the multichromatic beam reflected by the object.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical inspection of an object, Engel teaches an objective (rectangle body, represented by 45, Fig. 2) and an embodiment of the body which includes a diffractive element (112, Fig. 6) which splits multichromatic (paragraph [0125]) light reflected from the object (paragraph [0124] discloses the diffractive element 112 is part of the chromatic assembly 104; paragraph [0123] discloses the chromatic assembly may be placed in the imaging beam path; paragraph [0002] defines the imaging beam path is the path the light reflected from the object travels on).
An advantage of having a diffractive element which splits the beam reflected by the object is the dispersion can be set in a targeted manner, which allows a wider range (Engel: paragraph [0031]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Wieser as modified by Cohen-Sabban with the dispersive element taught in Engel in order to target the dispersion and enable a wide range of the objective.
Regarding claim 2, Wieser in view of Cohen-Sabban and Engel teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the processing device is configured to capture line images from at least two sensor lines (Wieser: paragraph [0028]) of the area scan camera that have above-average saturation values (paragraph [0028 discloses the lines are chosen based on the hue, however paragraph [0033] discloses the camera can be calculated to use any of hue, saturation, or intensity to calculate height).
Wieser fails to explicitly teach a maximum of five sensor lines being captured by the processing device.
However, Wieser teaches a range which completely encompasses two to five (paragraph [0028] teaches “at least two” sensor lines, with a sensor having a non-infinite maximum number of lines), and limiting the number of line images being captured is widely used in order to account for timing or efficiency constraints. A person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to impart the limitation of a maximum of five sensor lines captured in order to shorten the capture time while maintaining efficiency.
Regarding claim 5, Wieser in view of Cohen-Sabban and Engel teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches height information of the product surface is derivable depending on a position of the spatial distribution of saturation values in the image plane of the area scan camera (Wieser: paragraph [0033] discloses the camera includes a processor which can directly calculate height from hue; paragraph [0033] also discloses the camera can be calculated to use any of hue, saturation, or intensity to calculate height).
Regarding claim 6, Wieser in view of Cohen-Sabban and Engel teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, further teaches the processing device is configured to derive an analysis image of the product from a plurality of line images (Wieser: paragraph [0043] discloses an image is composed of all line images to analyze surface height).
Regarding claim 7, Wieser in view of Cohen-Sabban and Engel teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, further teaches the objective is configured to project a line image from an object plane of the product surface onto the image plane of the area scan camera (Cohen-Sabban: (Fig. 2 depicts wavelength range λ1 to λi and λj to λn; paragraph [0029] also discloses the two separate ranges; camera – 46, Fig. 1), the area scan camera being disposed perpendicularly to a direction of movement of a product (Wieser: paragraph [0072] discloses the RGB camera scans the product, which moves in the x-axis direction; Fig. 1 depicts the camera capturing images in the z-direction, which is perpendicular to the x-direction).
As discussed above in claim 1, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of Wieser as modified by Cohen-Sabban and Engel with the objective taught in Cohen-Sabban to ensure constant magnification and improve accuracy.
Regarding claim 8, Wieser in view of Cohen-Sabban and Engel teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, further teaches wherein the area scan camera is formed by a RGB chip (Weiser: paragraph [0072]) perpendicular to a direction of movement of a product (paragraph [0072] discloses the RGB camera scans the product, which moves in the x-axis direction; Fig. 1 depicts the camera capturing images in the z-direction, which is perpendicular to the x-direction).
Regarding claim 9, Wieser in view of Cohen-Sabban and Engel teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, further teaches the projection device is configured to emit light of the wavelength ranges red, green, blue (RGB) (Wieser: paragraph [0007] discloses the light can be all colors), infrared (IR) and/or ultraviolet (UV) (Wieser: paragraph [0013] discloses the light can be UV to IR), and the area scan camera is configured to detect said light (Wieser: paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 10, Wieser in view of Cohen-Sabban and Engel teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the inspection system has a further projection device, the further projection device emitting light in a different wavelength range than the projection device or in a matching wavelength range (Cohen-Sabban: Fig. 2 depicts a single projection device with a wavelength range λ1 to λi and λj to λn; paragraph [0029] also discloses the two separate ranges; the duplication of parts holds no patentable weight unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04(VI). The device of Cohen-Sabban achieves the same result of imaging the object with a different wavelength range and capturing both wavelength ranges with the camera).
Cohen-Sabban discloses a broad range of wavelengths improves resolution of the images (paragraph [0029]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of Wieser as modified by Cohen-Sabban and Engel with the second wavelength range taught in Cohen-Sabban to improve resolution of the images.
Regarding claim 11, Wieser in view of Cohen-Sabban and Engel teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the dispersive or diffractive element is a prism or a diffraction grating (Wieser: paragraph [0011]).
Regarding claim 12, Wieser in view of Cohen-Sabban and Engel teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the objective is a telecentric objective having a diaphragm on the image side (42, Fig. 1; paragraph [0026] discloses the objective may be telecentric).
As discussed above in claim 1, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of Wieser as modified by Cohen-Sabban and Engel with the objective taught in Cohen-Sabban to ensure constant magnification and improve accuracy.
Regarding claim 13, Wieser teaches a method for analyzing defects in a product (paragraph [0001]), in particular a printed circuit board product, a semiconductor wafer or the like (paragraph [0001] discloses the method is used to measure and tests a product, particularly a printed circuit board), the method using an inspection system (15, Fig. 1), the inspection system comprising a projection device (paragraph [0014] discloses a projector) (3, Fig. 1) and a processing device (paragraph [0033] discloses the optical detection device has a processor), a spectrometer member of the projection device splitting (paragraph [0014] discloses the projector includes a spectrometer member; 2, Fig. 1) configured to split white light into its spectral components and project a multichromatic light beam thus formed from monochromatic light beams onto a product at an angle of incidence β (paragraph [0077] discloses a varying angle of incidence, γ), the optical detection device having a detection unit comprising an area scan camera (paragraph [0028] discloses the camera may be an scan camera), a multichromatic light beam being reflected on the product in a detection plane of the detection unit (paragraph [0028]), the detection plane being perpendicular to a product surface of the product (Fig. 1 depicts the camera, 3, being perpendicular to the product surface, 5), the area scan camera detecting said multichromatic light beam (paragraph [0028]) the processing device deriving a height information of the product surface from a spatial distribution of saturation values of the reflected multichromatic light beam in the image plane, (paragraph [0033] discloses the camera includes a processor which can directly calculate height from hue; paragraph [0033] also discloses the camera can be calculated to use any of hue, saturation, or intensity to calculate height), a position of the optical detection unit relative to the product (paragraph [0045] discloses finding the height as the camera is scanned (the scanning motion would move the camera)) and the angle of incidence β (paragraph [0075] discloses varying the angle of incidence and finding height measurement).
Wieser fails to teach an objective, and a dispersive or diffractive element of the detection unit disposed in the detection plane in the objective or between the objective and the product splits the reflected multichromatic light beam reflected by the object and projects the reflected multichromatic light beam onto an image plane of the area scan camera.
However, Cohen-Sabban teaches an objective (50, Fig. 1) being included in the optical detection device (14, Fig. 1).
Cohen-Saban discloses objectives are used to ensure a constant magnification (paragraph [0026]), therefore improving image accuracy. Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Wieser with the objective taught in Cohen-Sabban to ensure constant magnification and improve accuracy.
Wieser as modified by Cohen-Saban fails to teach a dispersive or diffractive element of the detection unit disposed in the detection plane in the objective or between the objective and the product splits the reflected multichromatic light beam reflected by the object and projects the reflected multichromatic light beam onto an image plane of the area scan camera
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical inspection of an object, Engel teaches an objective (rectangle body, represented by 45, Fig. 2) and an embodiment of the body which includes a diffractive element (112, Fig. 6) which splits multichromatic (paragraph [0125]) light reflected from the object (paragraph [0124] discloses the diffractive element 112 is part of the chromatic assembly 104; paragraph [0123] discloses the chromatic assembly may be placed in the imaging beam path; paragraph [0002] defines the imaging beam path is the path the light reflected from the object travels on) onto a camera (34, Fig. 6).
An advantage of having a diffractive element which splits the beam reflected by the object is the dispersion can be set in a targeted manner, which allows a wider range (Engel: paragraph [0031]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Wieser as modified by Cohen-Sabban with the dispersive element taught in Engel in order to target the dispersion and enable a wide range of the objective.
Regarding claim 14, Wieser in view of Cohen-Sabban and Engel teaches the invention as explained above in claim 13, and further teaches the processing device simultaneously detects line images from at least three sensor lines of the area scan camera that have the highest saturation values (Wieser: paragraph [0028] discloses at least two sensor lines used based on the hue, however paragraph [0033] discloses the camera can be calculated to use any of hue, saturation, or intensity to calculate height).
Regarding claim 15, Wieser in view of Cohen-Sabban and Engel teaches the invention as explained above in claim 13, and further teaches a further projection device of the inspection system emits light in a different wavelength range than the projection device or in a matching wavelength range, the area scan camera simultaneously capturing line images in the wavelength ranges der projection device and the further projection device (Cohen-Sabban: Fig. 2 depicts a single projection device with a wavelength range λ1 to λi and λj to λn; paragraph [0029] also discloses the two separate ranges; the duplication of parts holds no patentable weight unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04(VI). The device of Cohen-Sabban achieves the same result of imaging the object with a different wavelength range and capturing both wavelength ranges with the camera.
Cohen-Sabban discloses a broad range of wavelengths improves resolution of the images (paragraph [0029]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Wieser as modified by Cohen-Sabban and Engel with the second wavelength range taught in Cohen-Sabban to improve resolution of the images.
Regarding claim 16, Wieser in view of Cohen-Sabban and Engel teaches the invention as explained above in claim 15, and further teaches the processing device derives further height information of the product surface from a spatial distribution of saturation values of the reflected multichromatic light beam of the further projection device in the image plane (Wieser: paragraph [0033] discloses the camera includes a processor which can directly calculate height from hue; paragraph [0033] also discloses the camera can be calculated to use any of hue, saturation, or intensity to calculate height), a position of the optical detection unit relative to the product (Wieser: paragraph [0045] discloses finding the height as the camera is scanned (the scanning motion would move the camera)) and the angle of incidence β (Wieser: paragraph [0075] discloses varying the angle of incidence and finding height measurement).
Regarding claim 17, Wieser in view of Cohen-Sabban and Engel teaches the invention as explained above in claim 13, and further teaches the processing device analyses the image plane of the area scan camera for at least one of hue, brightness and saturation (Wieser: paragraph [0033] discloses the camera includes a processor which can uses any of hue, saturation, or intensity to analyze the image).
Regarding claim 18, Wieser in view of Cohen-Sabban and Engel teaches the invention as explained above in claim 13, and further teaches the processing device determines at least one of a material, a material property and a geometric structure of the product from the analysis image (Wieser: paragraph [0054] discloses the device does geometric testing).
Regarding claim 19, Wieser in view of Cohen-Sabban and Engel teaches the invention as explained above in claim 13, and further teaches the processing device combines at least two or more line images of a matching product surface by image processing (Wieser: paragraph [0043] discloses an image is composed of all line images to analyze surface height).
Regarding claim 20, Wieser in view of Cohen-Sabban teaches the invention as explained above in claim 8, and further teaches the area scan camera is formed by a RGB chip (Wieser: paragraph [0072]) perpendicular to a direction of movement of a product (Wieser: paragraph [0072] discloses the RGB camera scans the product, which moves in the x-axis direction; Fig. 1 depicts the camera capturing images in the z-direction, which is perpendicular to the x-direction).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wieser (US20120033066A1) in view of Cohen-Sabban (US20020075484A1) and Engel (US20140043469A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Terada (US20220207710A1).
Regarding claim 3, Wieser in view of Cohen-Sabban and Engel teaches the invention as explained above in claim 2, but fails to teach a center of gravity of a Gaussian distribution of the light in the image plane of the area scan camera corresponds to a full width at half maximum, 50 %, 60 %, 70 %, 80 % or 90 % of the distribution, the center of gravity covering at least one sensor line.
However, in the same field of endeavor as optical inspection, Terada teaches a system that calculates the center of gravity of the light distribution by applying a Gaussian fitting (paragraph [0060]).
Terada is silent as to whether the center of gravity corresponds to full width at half maximum, 50 %, 60 %, 70 %, 80 % or 90 % of the distribution. However, calculation of the center of gravity of a Gaussian is a well-known basic step and routine in the art. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to apply the known method of center of gravity determination taught in Terada and find the center of gravity for different percentages of the Gaussian distribution in order to include more or less of the area scanned.
The technique of determining points of interest of different areas of the area scanned is well-known in the art and allows for maintaining high detection and examination accuracy (Terada: paragraph [0012]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of Wieser as modified by Cohen-Sabban and Engel with the center of gravity determination taught in Terada in order to maintain high detection and examination accuracy.
Regarding claim 4, Wieser in view of Cohen-Sabban and Engel teaches the invention as explained above in claim 3, but fails to teach the center of gravity for a first height information covers a first sensor line, a center of gravity for a second height information covering a second sensor line adjacent to the first sensor line.
However, Terada teaches a center of gravity that is calculated according to the scan lines (paragraph [0060]; Figs. 7a and 7b).
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of Wieser as modified by Cohen-Sabban and Engel with the center of gravity method taught in Terada as it maintains high detection and examination accuracy (Terada: paragraph [0012]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 9:00 - 6:00 CDT.
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.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877