DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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:
“separating element” in claims 1, 8, 10-11, 26, and 28, and “dispersive element” in claims 1 and 27-28.
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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 and 11-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barnard (US Patent 5,565,983).
Regarding claim 1, Barnard teaches an optical device(10), comprising:
a separating element (20) to separate an optical signal into a plurality of spectral bands (UV band and visible band) that are spatially (“rays 17 are reflected by a concave collimator mirror 18 to a reflective echelle dispersion grating 20…produces high order spectra”, Col. 3, lines 29-36) or angularly separated along a band separation direction,
wherein spectral ranges differ among each spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands(discloses that different spectral bands correspond to different spectral ranges, a first band covers 167-405 nm and a second band covers 405-766 nm, Col. 4, lines 18-40);
a dispersive element (22) comprising a plurality of dispersive regions (Col. 4, lines 18-19), wherein a dispersive region of the plurality of dispersive regions (Col. 4, lines 21-26) is to disperse spectral components of a spectral band (Col. 4, lines 18-40), of the plurality of spectral bands (discloses orthogonal to the first dispersion direction, Col. 3, lines 45-52), along a dispersion direction to form a dispersed spectral band(Col. 3, lines 56-60);
a plurality of optical elements (discloses concave spherical reflector 26, flat mirror 28, and field flattener lens 30, Col. 3, lines 57-60), wherein an optical element of the plurality of optical elements is to manipulate the dispersed spectral band (discloses focusing, beam redirection and field flattening, Col.3, lines 56-61) in association with imaging (“focuses the beam… onto a detector 34”, Col.3, lines 56-61) the spectral band onto a detector area (pixel locations are arranged to receive selected spectral lines, Col. 4, lines 36-38) of a detector array (discloses two dimensional array of small photodetectors (CCD), Col. 4, lines 1-2 ); and
the detector array (discloses two dimensional array of small photodetectors (CCD), Col. 4, lines 1-2) comprising the detector area (pixel locations are arranged to receive selected spectral lines, Col. 4, lines 36-38).
Regarding claim 2, Barnard teaches wherein the band separation direction is perpendicular to the dispersion direction (discloses that the second grating has dispersion lines oriented at right angles to those of the first grating, the band separation direction is perpendicular to the dispersion direction, Col. 3, lines 44-54).
Regarding claim 3, Barnard teaches wherein the plurality of spectral bands (UV band and visible band) are substantially non-overlapping (discloses separation of spectral ranges, Col. 4, lines 18-40).
Regarding claim 4, Barnard teaches wherein a spectral resolution of a first spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands is different from a spectral resolution of a second spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands(discloses different spectral bands are dispersed by different grating portions having different groove densities, results in different spectral resolutions for the respective spectral bands, Col. 4, lines 18-40).
Regarding claim 5, Barnard teaches wherein a bandwidth of a first spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands (UV 167-405 nm, Col. 4, lines 18-40) is different from a bandwidth of a second spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands (visible band 405-766 nm, Col. 4, lines 18-40).
Regarding claim 6, Barnard teaches wherein a spectrum formed by a sum of a set of spectral bands, of the plurality of spectral bands, that is imaged on the detector array is non-continuous (discloses selective imaging of spectral bands, Col. 4, lines 36-37, shutter-based exclusion of entire wavelength ranges, Col. 4, lines 42-61, and selection of non-interfering portions of spectral bands, Col. 5, lines 23-25).
Regarding claim 7, Barnard teaches wherein at least one spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands is not imaged onto any detector area of the detector array (discloses a movable shutter 46, “when the shutter is closed to block the second portion, preventing dispersion of the visible range to the detector, the ultraviolet radiation is dispersed and passed to the detector”, Col. 4, lines 42-54).
Regarding claim 8, Barnard teaches wherein an optical power of a spectral band (Col. 4, lines 18-40), of the plurality of spectral bands (discloses orthogonal to the first dispersion direction, Col. 3, lines 45-52), at the detector array is more than 90% of an optical power of the spectral band prior to the separating element (discloses reflective gratings, enlarged grating areas for weaker bands, selective shuttering, inherently result in most of the optical power of each spectral band reaching the detector, Col. 4, lines 32-36).
Regarding claim 11, Barnard teaches wherein the separating element comprises a diffraction
Grating (20).
Regarding claim 12, Barnard teaches wherein the plurality of dispersive regions are stacked along the band separation direction (“the second grating 22 … has its surface divided into several portions. In the present case, two portions are separated by a boundary 37. The first portion 38…The second portion 42…”, inherently discloses multiple dispersive grating portions arranged along a direction that separates spectral bands, Col. 4, lines 51-54).
Regarding claim 13, Barnard teaches wherein a given dispersive region, of the plurality of dispersive regions (Col. 4, lines 21-26), disperses a spectral band (Col. 4, lines 18-40), of the plurality of spectral bands (discloses orthogonal to the first dispersion direction, Col. 3, lines 45-52), incident thereon independently of dispersion by other dispersive regions of the plurality of dispersive regions(discloses each grating portion handles its own spectral band independently, Col. 4, lines 18-32).
Regarding claim 14, Barnard teaches wherein the optical element (discloses concave spherical reflector 26, flat mirror 28, and field flattener lens 30, Col. 3, lines 57-60) is to manipulate the dispersed spectral band (discloses focusing, beam redirection and field flattening, Col.3, lines 56-61) such that a size of the dispersed spectral band along the dispersion direction matches a size of the detector area along the dispersion direction (discloses the combination of dispersive gratings 20/22, mirrors 26/28, lens 30, 2D CCD detector 34, inherently ensures that the dispersed spectral band along the dispersion direction is imaged to fit the detector, Col. 3, lines 44-61 and Col. 4, lines 1-12 and lines 42-46).
Regarding claim 15, Barnard teaches wherein the optical element (discloses concave spherical reflector 26, flat mirror 28, and field flattener lens 30, Col. 3, lines 57-60) is to manipulate the dispersed spectral band (discloses focusing, beam redirection and field flattening, Col.3, lines 56-61) such that a size of the dispersed spectral band along the band separation direction matches a size of the detector area along the band separation direction (discloses that the second grating has dispersion lines oriented at right angles to those of the first grating, the band separation direction is perpendicular to the dispersion direction, Col. 3, lines 44-54).
Regarding claim 16, Barnard teaches wherein the plurality of optical elements are to manipulate the dispersed spectral bands such that images of the spectral bands are stacked along the band separation direction at a plane of the detector array(“the second grating 22 … has its surface divided into several portions. In the present case, two portions are separated by a boundary 37. The first portion 38…The second portion 42…”, “the pixels are further located to detect radiation in several spectral ranges, for example two ranges covering visible and ultraviolet respectively”, inherently discloses multiple dispersive grating portions arranged along a direction that separates spectral bands, and the optical system manipulates the dispersed beams so that UV and visible spectra are imaged on separate regions of the detector, Col. 4, lines 51-54).
Regarding claim 17, Barnard teaches wherein the plurality of optical elements (discloses concave spherical reflector 26, flat mirror 28, and field flattener lens 30, Col. 3, lines 57-60) are to provide spatial rearrangement of the plurality of spectral bands on a plane of the detector array (discloses a movable shutter 46, “when the shutter is closed to block the second portion, preventing dispersion of the visible range to the detector, the ultraviolet radiation is dispersed and passed to the detector”, Col. 4, lines 42-54).
Regarding claim 18, Barnard teaches wherein the detector array (discloses two dimensional array of small photodetectors (CCD), Col. 4, lines 1-2) comprises a plurality of detector areas (pixel locations are arranged to receive selected spectral lines, Col. 4, lines 36-38) that are stacked along the band separation direction (“the second grating 22 … has its surface divided into several portions. In the present case, two portions are separated by a boundary 37. The first portion 38…The second portion 42…”, “the pixels are further located to detect radiation in several spectral ranges, for example two ranges covering visible and ultraviolet respectively”, inherently discloses multiple dispersive grating portions arranged along a direction that separates spectral bands, and the optical system manipulates the dispersed beams so that UV and visible spectra are imaged on separate regions of the detector, Col. 4, lines 51-54).
Regarding claim 19, Barnard teaches wherein the detector array is a two dimensional (2D) array (discloses two dimensional array of small photodetectors (CCD), Col. 4, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 20, Barnard teaches wherein the detector array comprises one or more one dimensional (1D) detector arrays (“the detector preferably is formed as a two dimensional array of small photodetectors 32, but alternatively may be a single photodetector that is positionable relative to the gratings”, Col. 4, lines 1-3)
Regarding claim 21, Barnard teaches wherein the detector array is a single photon avalanche diode (SPAD) array (discloses a charge coupled device (CCD), Col. 4, lines 4-8).
Regarding claim 22, Barnard teaches wherein the detector array (discloses two dimensional array of small photodetectors (CCD), Col. 4, lines 1-2) comprises an array of time-resolved photon counting detectors (discloses each pixel responds to individual photons, inherently supports photon counting, Col. 4, lines 1-17).
Regarding claim 23, Barnard teaches wherein the detector area (pixel locations are arranged to receive selected spectral lines, Col. 4, lines 36-38) comprises a plurality of detector areas, and a size of a first detector area of the plurality of detector areas is different from a size of a second detector area of the plurality of detector areas (discloses a detector array where the UV spectral band is imaged onto larger detector area than the visible spectral band, Col. 4, lines 33-41).
Regarding claim 24, Barnard teaches wherein the detector area (pixel locations are arranged to receive selected spectral lines, Col. 4, lines 36-38) comprises a plurality of detector areas (discloses a detector array where the UV spectral band is imaged onto larger detector area than the visible spectral band, Col. 4, lines 33-41), and a first spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands is imaged on a first detector area of the plurality of detector areas (discloses UV band, Col. 4, lines 18-40), a second spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands is imaged on a second detector area of the plurality of detector areas(discloses visible band, Col. 4, lines 18-40), wherein an optical resolution of the first spectral band matches an optical resolution of the second spectral band, a bandwidth of the first spectral band is smaller than a bandwidth of the second spectral band (discloses different spectral bands are dispersed by different grating portions having different groove densities, results in different spectral resolutions for the respective spectral bands, Col. 4, lines 18-40), and a total width and pixel size of the first detector area in the dispersion direction matches a total width and pixel size of the second detector area in the dispersion direction such that the first spectral band has a higher spectral resolution than the second spectral band (“fixed solid state charge transfer device which effects signals proportional to the intensity of corresponding spectral lines impinging at various locations”, implies that both spectral bands are mapped across detector pixels with similar dispersion direction width, UV has a smaller bandwidth per pixel, higher spectral resolution, Col. 4, lines 4-7).
Regarding claim 25, Barnard teaches wherein the detector area (pixel locations are arranged to receive selected spectral lines, Col. 4, lines 36-38) comprises a plurality of detector areas (discloses a detector array where the UV spectral band is imaged onto larger detector area than the visible spectral band, Col. 4, lines 33-41), and a size of a first detector area (discloses UV band, Col. 4, lines 18-40), of the plurality of detector areas (UV band and visible band), in the dispersion direction matches a size of a second detector area (discloses visible band, Col. 4, lines 18-40), of the plurality of detector areas (UV band and visible band), in the dispersion direction and a size of the first detector area in the band separation direction is different from a size of the second detector area in the band separation direction (“fixed solid state charge transfer device which effects signals proportional to the intensity of corresponding spectral lines impinging at various locations”, implies that both spectral bands are mapped across detector pixels with similar dispersion direction width, UV has a smaller bandwidth per pixel, higher spectral resolution, Col. 4, lines 4-7).
Regarding claim 26, Barnard teaches an optical device (10), comprising:
a separating element (20) to separate an optical signal into a plurality of spectral bands (UV band and visible band) having different spectral ranges and being spatially (“rays 17 are reflected by a concave collimator mirror 18 to a reflective echelle dispersion grating 20…produces high order spectra”, Col. 3, lines 29-36) or angularly separated along a band separation direction;
a plurality of optical elements (discloses concave spherical reflector 26, flat mirror 28, and field flattener lens 30, Col. 3, lines 57-60), wherein an optical element of the plurality of optical elements is to manipulate a spectral band (discloses focusing, beam redirection and field flattening, Col.3, lines 56-61), of the plurality of spectral bands, in association with imaging (“focuses the beam… onto a detector 34”, Col.3, lines 56-61) the spectral band onto a detector area (pixel locations are arranged to receive selected spectral lines, Col. 4, lines 36-38); and
the detector array (discloses two dimensional array of small photodetectors (CCD), Col. 4, lines 1-2) comprising the detector area (pixel locations are arranged to receive selected spectral lines, Col. 4, lines 36-38).
Regarding claim 27, Barnard teaches further comprising a dispersive element (22) including a plurality of dispersive regions (Col. 4, lines 18-19), wherein a dispersive region of the plurality of dispersive regions (Col. 4, lines 21-26) is to disperse spectral components of the spectral band along a dispersion direction (discloses orthogonal to the first dispersion direction, Col. 3, lines 45-52).
Regarding claim 28, Barnard teaches a method, comprising:
separating, by a separating element (20) of an optical device, an optical signal into a plurality of spectral bands (UV band and visible band) each having a different spectral range and being spatially (“rays 17 are reflected by a concave collimator mirror 18 to a reflective echelle dispersion grating 20…produces high order spectra”, Col. 3, lines 29-36) or angularly separated along a band separation direction;
dispersing, by a dispersive element (22) of the optical device, spectral components of a spectral band (Col. 4, lines 18-40), of the plurality of spectral bands (discloses orthogonal to the first dispersion direction, Col. 3, lines 45-52), along a dispersion direction to form a dispersed spectral band (Col. 3, lines 56-60); and
manipulating, by an optical element of the optical device (discloses focusing, beam redirection and field flattening, Col.3, lines 56-61), the dispersed spectral band in association with imaging (“focuses the beam… onto a detector 34”, Col.3, lines 56-61) the spectral band onto a detector area (pixel locations are arranged to receive selected spectral lines, Col. 4, lines 36-38) of a detector array of the optical device (discloses two dimensional array of small photodetectors (CCD), Col. 4, lines 1-2 ).
Regarding claim 29, Barnard teaches wherein a property of a first dispersed spectral band of the plurality of dispersed spectral bands (UV 167-405 nm, Col. 4, lines 18-40) differs from a property of a second dispersed spectral band of the plurality of dispersed spectral bands (visible band 405-766 nm, Col. 4, lines 18-40, discloses different spectral bands are dispersed by different grating portions having different groove densities, results in different spectral resolutions for the respective spectral bands, Col. 4, lines 18-40).
Regarding claim 30, Barnard teaches wherein at least one of a location, size, or orientation of a manipulated dispersed spectral band formed by the manipulation of the dispersed spectral band differs from a location, size, or orientation of a second manipulated dispersed spectral band formed by manipulation of a second dispersed spectral band (“the second grating 22 … has its surface divided into several portions. In the present case, two portions are separated by a boundary 37. The first portion 38…The second portion 42…”, “the pixels are further located to detect radiation in several spectral ranges, for example two ranges covering visible and ultraviolet respectively”, inherently discloses multiple dispersive grating portions arranged along a direction that separates spectral bands, and the optical system manipulates the dispersed beams so that UV and visible spectra are imaged on separate regions of the detector, Col. 4, lines 51-54).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnard (US Patent 5,565,983) in view of Vincent et al. ( US Patent 4,870,268)(hereinafter, “Vincent”).
Regarding claim 9, Barnard teaches wherein a spectral component at or near a boundary between a first spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands (UV 167-405 nm, Col. 4, lines 18-40) and a second spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands (visible band 405-766 nm, Col. 4, lines 18-40).
Barnard fails to disclose split such that a first portion of the spectral component is in the first spectral band and a second portion of the spectral component is in the second spectral band, wherein a sum of a power of the first portion and a power of the second portion is a total power of the spectral component.
Vincent teaches split such that a first portion of the spectral component is in the first spectral band and a second portion of the spectral component is in the second spectral band (discloses light at the blue-green boundary is partially reflected to the blue sensor and partially transmitted to the green sensor, Col. 13, lines 10-20 and lines 23-38), wherein a sum of a power of the first portion and a power of the second portion is a total power of the spectral component (“the spectra of the spectrally-tailored fluorescent lamp as separated by the dichroic beamsplitters 16 and 17 and detected by CCD photodiode arrays 18, 19 and 20, produce a color gamut nearly equivalent t standard monitor phosphor output”, implies that all incident light is either reflected or transmitted, nearly full spectral power accounting, Col. 13, lines 42-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate the dichroic beamsplitter of Vincent to Barnard to improve spectral fidelity (Col. 12, lines 41-44), optical power conservation(Col. 6, lines 51-54), reduced shutter reliance(Col. 20, lines 13-15), and enhanced detector performance(Col. 8, lines 18-22).
Regarding claim 10, Barnard fails to disclose wherein the separating element comprises a plurality of thin film interference filters, each associated with a different spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands.
Vincent teaches wherein the separating element comprises a plurality of thin film interference filters (dichroic layer, Col. 14, lines 44-47 and Col. 16, lines 20-24), each associated with a different spectral band of the plurality of spectral bands (discloses each dichroic layer or layer device is tuned to a distinct spectral band, Col. 14, lines 47-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to integrate the dichroic beamsplitter of Vincent to Barnard to improve spectral fidelity (Col. 12, lines 41-44), optical power conservation(Col. 6, lines 51-54), reduced shutter reliance(Col. 20, lines 13-15), and enhanced detector performance(Col. 8, lines 18-22).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA XING whose telephone number is (571)270-7743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 5 PM.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/CHRISTINA I XING/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877