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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 7/30/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed.
Regarding NPL element 9, the International Search Report for PCT/JP2022/013781, the submitted document is in the original Japanese. However, the examiner has attached a translation obtained via Global Dossier.
The IDS has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
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:
“chip holding member” in claim 1.
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 1-4, 6-7, 12-14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lokhorst et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20080132808) in view of Karabacak et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20190390431), the combination of which is hereafter referred to as “LK”.
As to claim 1, Lokhorst teaches an optical sensor device (Abstract “a bed occupant monitoring system comprising a pressure sensitive member … configured to provide a reflected wave energy pressure signal by reflecting incident wave energy”) comprising:
a plurality of optical sensor chips that have one or a plurality of changers to change a characteristic of an input optical signal (Figure 8, paragraph 0053 “ input fibre 15 (see FIG. 2), which provides incident wave energy”) depending on a state of a specimen (Figure 8, paragraph 0053 “pressure sensor 5 is configured to reflect incident wave energy received from interface electronics 2 with an intensity which varies with a pressure applied to pressure sensor 5”), and that output an optical signal with a changed characteristic (Figure 8, paragraph 0053 “an output fibre 14 (see FIG. 2), which transmits reflected wave energy to interface electronics 2”);
optical fibers that connect [each sensor] through which an optical signal propagates (Figures 2, 6), and via which the optical signal is input to and output from the plurality of optical sensor chips (Figure 8, paragraph 0053 “Each pressure sensor is coupled to interface electronics 2 by an input fibre 15 (see FIG. 2), which provides incident wave energy, and an output fibre 14 (see FIG. 2), which transmits reflected wave energy to interface electronics 2.”); and
a chip holding member to which the plurality of optical sensor chips are provided (Figure 6, paragraph 0067 “pressure sensors 5 sandwiched between two layers 9, 10 of a compressible material. The compressible material may comprise foam, and preferably comprises a soft polyurethane foam”).
Lokhorst does not teach a single optical fiber that connects among the plurality of optical sensor chips through which an optical signal propagates (Figure 2, paragraph 0033 “The optic sensor chain 10 comprising a series of intrinsic fiber optic sensors 12, 12a, 12b, 12c, . . . , 12n that are mutually spaced with respect to each other in a longitudinal direction of the optic sensor chain 10 and at least one optic fiber 14 to optically connect the plurality of intrinsic fiber optic sensors to the interrogator 20.”), and via which the optical signal is input to and output from the plurality of optical sensor chips. However, it is known in the art as taught by Karabacak. Karabacak teaches a single optical fiber that connects among the plurality of optical sensor chips through which an optical signal propagates, and via which the optical signal is input to and output from the plurality of optical sensor chips (paragraph 0034 “The interrogator 20 is configured to issue an optic interrogation signal and the intrinsic fiber optic sensors 12, 12a, 12b, 12c, . . . , 12n are configured to respond to said optic interrogation signal with an optic measurement signal that is indicative for at least one physical parameter sensed by the intrinsic fiber optic sensors.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a single optical fiber that connects among the plurality of optical sensor chips through which an optical signal propagates, and via which the optical signal is input to and output from the plurality of optical sensor chips, in order to create a more cost-effective solution to monitoring a large area, by reducing the number of components (fibers) necessary.
As to claim 2, LK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Lokhorst teaches the chip holding member is a sheet member whose shape is deformable (paragraph 0067 “pressure sensors 5 sandwiched between two layers 9, 10 of a compressible material. The compressible material may comprise foam, and preferably comprises a soft polyurethane foam”).
As to claim 3, LK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim1, in addition Karabacak teaches the plurality of optical sensor chips are continuous via the optical fiber (Figure 2A, fiber optic sensors 12, 12a… 12n are in series along fiber 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the plurality of optical sensor chips are continuous via the optical fiber, in order to lower the cost by reducing the number of fibers required (i.e. compare to Lokhorst Figure 6).
As to claim 4, LK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of the plurality of optical sensor chips include: a first optical sensor chip to input and output an optical signal to and from an optical transceiver; and a second optical sensor chip to change a characteristic of an optical signal output from the optical sensor chip at a preceding stage and to output an optical signal with a changed characteristic to the optical sensor chip at a preceding stage by return, and the first optical sensor chip changes a characteristic of an optical signal from the optical transceiver, outputs an optical signal with a changed characteristic to the optical sensor chip at a subsequent stage, and outputs an optical signal having propagated through the plurality of optical sensor chips continuous between the first optical sensor chip and the second optical sensor chip to the optical transceiver.
However, it is known in the art as taught by Karabacak. Karabacak teaches the plurality of optical sensor chips include:
a second optical sensor chip (Figure 2A, element 12a) to change a characteristic of an optical signal output from the optical sensor chip at a preceding stage and to output an optical signal with a changed characteristic to the optical sensor chip at a preceding stage by return (Figure 2A, paragraph 0034 “the intrinsic fiber optic sensors 12, 12a, 12b, 12c, . . . , 12n are configured to respond to said optic interrogation signal with an optic measurement signal that is indicative for at least one physical parameter sensed by the intrinsic fiber optic sensors”, where each sensor inputs the interrogation signal as well as all measurement signals from the other sensors, and outputs its own measurement signal plus all the other measurement signals), and
a first optical sensor chip (Figure 2A, element 12b) to input and output an optical signal to and from an optical transceiver (paragraph 0034 “the intrinsic fiber optic sensors 12, 12a, 12b, 12c, . . . , 12n are configured to respond to said optic interrogation signal with an optic measurement signal that is indicative for at least one physical parameter sensed by the intrinsic fiber optic sensors”); and
the first optical sensor chip (Figure 2A, element 12b)
changes a characteristic of an optical signal from the optical transceiver (paragraph 0035 “An intrinsic fiber optic sensor modifies the interrogation signal in accordance with the sensed physical parameter and the modified interrogation signal is the measurement signal.”),
outputs an optical signal with a changed characteristic to the optical sensor chip at a subsequent stage (paragraph 0034 “the intrinsic fiber optic sensors 12, 12a, 12b, 12c, . . . , 12n are configured to respond to said optic interrogation signal with an optic measurement signal that is indicative for at least one physical parameter sensed by the intrinsic fiber optic sensors”), and
outputs an optical signal having propagated through the plurality of optical sensor chips continuous between the first optical sensor chip and the second optical sensor chip to the optical transceiver (paragraph 0034 “The at least one optic fiber 14 serves to optically connect the plurality of intrinsic fiber optic sensors 12, 12a, 12b, 12c, . . . , 12n to the interrogator 20 to allow the interrogator to transmit its optic interrogation signal to the intrinsic fiber optic sensors 12, 12a, 12b, 12c, . . . , 12n and to receive the optic measurement signals of the intrinsic fiber optic sensors in response.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the plurality of optical sensor chips include: a first optical sensor chip to input and output an optical signal to and from an optical transceiver; and a second optical sensor chip to change a characteristic of an optical signal output from the optical sensor chip at a preceding stage and to output an optical signal with a changed characteristic to the optical sensor chip at a preceding stage by return, and the first optical sensor chip changes a characteristic of an optical signal from the optical transceiver, outputs an optical signal with a changed characteristic to the optical sensor chip at a subsequent stage, and outputs an optical signal having propagated through the plurality of optical sensor chips continuous between the first optical sensor chip and the second optical sensor chip to the optical transceiver, in order to allow a series of sensors to operate through the same fiber optic, reducing the need for multiple fibers.
As to claim 6, LK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Karabacak teaches the plurality of optical sensor chips change a characteristic of an input optical signal depending on a plurality of types of states of the specimen (paragraph 0035 “An intrinsic fiber optic sensor may comprise a plurality of optic sensor elements that are responsive to mutually different physical parameters, e.g. a pressure and a temperature.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the plurality of optical sensor chips change a characteristic of an input optical signal depending on a plurality of types of states of the specimen, in order to simultaneously measure multiple parameters with the same sensor.
As to claim 7, LK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 4, in addition Karabacak teaches the second optical sensor chip includes a reflector to reflect an optical signal with a changed characteristic to the optical sensor chip at a preceding stage (paragraph 0060 “the wavelengths of the reflected portions of the optic signal in fiber 14, which are reflected respectively by the first and second intrinsic fiber optic sensors 12a and 12b, will likewise change” indicating that every sensor reflects part of the interrogation pulse). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the second optical sensor chip includes a reflector to reflect an optical signal with a changed characteristic to the optical sensor chip at a preceding stage, in order to have each sensor return a unique pulse.
As to claim 12, Lokhorst teaches a measurement system comprising:
an optical transceiver to transmit an optical signal to the optical sensor chip in the optical sensor device (Figure 2, paragraph 0058 “LEDs 30”) and to receive an optical signal propagated through the plurality of optical sensor chips provided in the optical sensor device (Figure 2, paragraph 0058 “photodetector 33”); and
a received signal analyzer to measure a state of the specimen by analyzing a signal received by the optical transceiver (Figure 2, paragraph 0063 “The signal processing means may comprise microprocessor 32, a digital signal processor, and/or noise reduction circuitry.”).
Lokhorst in view of Karabacak teaches the optical sensor device according to claim 1 (above).
As to claim 13, LK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 12, in addition Karabacak teaches a modulated signal generator to generate a modulated signal used to measure a state of the specimen (paragraph 0036 “The optic interrogation signal may include a wavelength sweep through respective wavelength ranges associated with the various intrinsic fiber optic sensors arranged in the optic sensor chain 10.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a modulated signal generator to generate a modulated signal used to measure a state of the specimen, in order to more efficiently generate a response from all sensors.
As to claim 14, LK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 12, in addition Karabacak teaches the received signal analyzer specifies each of positions of the plurality of optical sensor chips using a signal received by the optical transceiver, and measures a state of the specimen at each of the positions of the optical sensor chips (paragraph 0037 “ the intrinsic fiber sensors have mutually exclusive reflection wavelengths which are strain-dependent such that the local strain at each location of intrinsic fiber sensor is individually recorded” where the received wavelength is correlated to a location, and analysis of that signal is indicative of the parameter at that location). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the received signal analyzer specifies each of positions of the plurality of optical sensor chips using a signal received by the optical transceiver, and measures a state of the specimen at each of the positions of the optical sensor chips, in order to more easily correlate a signal to a location (i.e. without the need for lookup tables).
As to claim 16, the method would flow from claim 1.
Claims 5, 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LK, and further in view of Schriek et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20210401291).
As to claim 5, LK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of the optical sensor chip includes: a waveguide through which an optical signal propagates; a spot-size converter to convert a spot size of an optical signal; and one or a plurality of changers to change at least one of an intensity characteristic, a phase characteristic, or a frequency characteristic of an optical signal depending on a state of the specimen.
However, it is known in the art as taught by Schriek. Schriek teaches the optical sensor chip includes:
a waveguide through which an optical signal propagates (Figure 4, paragraph 0165 “input optical waveguide 6a” and arms 12a-b also propagate the light);
one or a plurality of changers to change at least one of an intensity characteristic, a phase characteristic, or a frequency characteristic of an optical signal depending on a state of the specimen (paragraph 0165 “a temperature and/or pressure wave emitted from the substance to be analysed predominantly reaches the measuring arm 12a of the interferometer and there modifies the refractive index of the optical waveguide”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the optical sensor chip includes: a waveguide through which an optical signal propagates; and one or a plurality of changers to change at least one of an intensity characteristic, a phase characteristic, or a frequency characteristic of an optical signal depending on a state of the specimen, in order to improve the quality of the measurement.
Schriek does not explicitly teach a spot-size converter to convert a spot size of an optical signal. However, Schriek teaches a beam splitter (Figure 4, paragraph 0165 “beam splitter 6c”) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to use mirrors, lenses, beam splitters and other elements to manipulate a light beam in a desired manner, and the selection of any of these known equivalents to alter the light distribution in the fiber (see applicant’s paragraph 0025) would be an obvious matter of design choice within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.06(II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a spot-size converter to convert a spot size of an optical signal, in order to shape and direct the light in a desired manner.
As to claim 8, LK in view of Schriek teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 5, in addition Schriek teaches the plurality of changers change a characteristic of an input optical signal depending on different states of the specimen (paragraph 0165 “a temperature and/or pressure wave emitted from the substance to be analysed predominantly reaches the measuring arm 12a of the interferometer and there modifies the refractive index of the optical waveguide”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the plurality of changers change a characteristic of an input optical signal depending on different states of the specimen, in order to simultaneously measure multiple parameters with the same sensor.
As to claim 9, LK in view of Schriek teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 5, with the exception of the spot-size converter is a spot size converter or a grating coupler including a waveguide. However, Schriek teaches a beam splitter (Figure 4, paragraph 0165 “beam splitter 6c”) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to use mirrors, lenses, gratings, beam splitters and other elements to manipulate a light beam in a desired manner, and the selection of any of these known equivalents to alter the light distribution in the fiber (see applicant’s paragraph 0025) would be an obvious matter of design choice within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.06(II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the spot-size converter is a spot size converter or a grating coupler including a waveguide, in order to shape and direct the light in a desired manner.
As to claim 10, LK in view of Schriek teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 5, in addition Schriek teaches each of the changers is a ring resonator, a Mach-Zehnder interferometer, a combination of the ring resonator and the Mach-Zehnder interferometer, or an optical element to output a part of an optical signal propagating through the waveguide to outside and to input reflected light obtained by reflecting the light output to the outside (Figure 5, paragraph 0169 “optical waveguide resonance ring 13”, also paragraph 0097 “Such a resonance ring can also be integrated into one arm, preferably the measuring arm, of a Mach-Zehnder interferometer.”). it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have each of the changers is a ring resonator, a Mach-Zehnder interferometer, a combination of the ring resonator and the Mach-Zehnder interferometer, or an optical element to output a part of an optical signal propagating through the waveguide to outside and to input reflected light obtained by reflecting the light output to the outside, in order to sense temperature and pressure with higher sensitivity.
As to claim 11, LK in view of Schriek teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 5, in addition Schriek teaches a member formed of a material different from a material of the waveguide is stacked on the waveguide (Figure 1, paragraph 0159 “the measuring body 1 can be provided with a coating 22”), and each of the changers changes a characteristic of an input optical signal depending on a material of the member stacked on the waveguide (paragraph 0159 “The material of the coating 22 should be designed in such a way that it transmits pressure and thermal waves well.” indicating that material choice affects the waves that the waveguide encounters, which affects the signal generated). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a member formed of a material different from a material of the waveguide is stacked on the waveguide, and each of the changers changes a characteristic of an input optical signal depending on a material of the member stacked on the waveguide, in order to affect mechanical and/or thermal coupling in a desired manner.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LK, and further in view of Shouldice et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20160151603).
As to claim 15, LK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim13, in addition Lokhorst teaches a wireless communication device to perform wireless communication with an external device (paragraph 0050 “wireless connections”) including a display and a controller (Figure 1, paragraph 0050 “Indicator device 3 may comprise an visible or audible alarm, a data display system, an attendant call system, a data logging system, or the like.”),
wherein the wireless communication device causes the display to display measurement result information measured by the received signal analyzer by transmitting the measurement result information to the external device (paragraph 0050 “data display device”).
LK does not teach the controller generates a control signal to specify a state of the specimen, and the modulated signal generator generates a modulated signal to be used to measure a state of the specimen designated by the control signal, and outputs the modulated signal generated to the optical transceiver. However, it is known in the art as taught by Shouldice. Shouldice teaches monitoring a person’s sleeping status (Abstract “The system may include a monitor such as a non-contact motion sensor from which sleep information may be determined.”) where a controller generates a control signal to specify a state of the specimen, and the modulated signal generator generates a modulated signal to be used to measure a state of the specimen designated by the control signal, and outputs the modulated signal generated to the optical transceiver (paragraph 0128 “processor control instructions of the processor may further control the processor of a device in execution of an autostart process to: evaluate the movement data transmitted from a sensor module to determine presence or absence of a user based on a detection quality of sensed respiration; and on detection of presence of the user, initiating a sleep session information gathering process” and Figure 3, paragraph 0234 “The bedside unit 3000 is a device placed on a bedside table, bedside locker, stand, or other supporting means located near the user when they are in bed. This device contains the biomotion sensor and other environmental sensor(s), and a wired or wireless (e.g., Bluetooth) link to an app on a smart device 3002 (e.g., smartphone or tablet).”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the controller generates a control signal to specify a state of the specimen, and the modulated signal generator generates a modulated signal to be used to measure a state of the specimen designated by the control signal, and outputs the modulated signal generated to the optical transceiver, in order to better monitor a sleeping person.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARREAS UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0600-1400 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) 2705789. 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.
/J.C.U/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 /MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights