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 (IDS) submitted on 11/06/2024 and 03/05/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 11, 14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically, regarding the phrase ‘a patch width in the direction of the width extension of less than 90 %’, it is unclear the patch width is less than 90% of what.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically, regarding the phrase ‘wherein the radar sensor comprises a blind area which is smaller than 300 mm’, an area cannot be a one-dimensional unit of measure, but rather needs to be a two-dimensional unit of measure.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "The vehicle". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, the claim reads ‘The vehicle or the mounting device for a vehicle as recited in claim 12, wherein the vehicle is: an agricultural utility vehicle or a mounting device for an agricultural utility vehicle’. This is problematic because it can be read as ‘wherein the vehicle is: . . . a mounting device’ which does not seem to be what is intended at the least.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forslund et al. (WO 2013055272 hereinafter Forslund) in view of Alamouti et al. (US 20090315794 hereinafter Alamouti).
Regarding claim 1, Forslund teaches A radar sensor for determining a distance of an object in a detection area, the radar sensor comprising (claim 1 “a radar system (50) for short range detection of objects”):
a transmitter module which comprises a transmitter-side patch array antenna having a first directivity, the transmitter module being configured to transmit radar signals with the first directivity (p.6 “The transmit antenna 102 is also referred to as microstrip patch array transmit antenna, and the receive antenna 104 is also referred to as microstrip patch array receive antenna.”; p.7 “a broad beam in the H- plane and a narrow in the E-plane.”);
a receiver module which comprises a receiver-side patch array antenna having a first directivity, the receiver module being configured to receive the radar signals which are reflected in the detection area (p.6 “The transmit antenna 102 is also referred to as microstrip patch array transmit antenna, and the receive antenna 104 is also referred to as microstrip patch array receive antenna.”; p.7 “a broad beam in the H- plane and a narrow in the E-plane.”); and
a lens device arranged in a beam path of the transmitted radar signals and of the reflected radar signals opposite to the transmitter module and to the receiver module, the lens device comprising a first lens for the transmitted radar signals and a second lens for the reflected radar signals (p.12 “Fig. 5A also shows a transmit lens 604 and a receive lens 610.”),
wherein,
the transmitter-side patch array antenna and the receiver-side patch array antenna are each configured so that the respective first directivity comprises, in a sectional plane running vertical with respect to a propagation direction of the transmitted or reflected radar signals, a length extension and a width extension which runs orthogonal to the length extension (p.4 “a radar coverage may typically be provided up to approximately 90 degrees horizontally and 15 degrees vertically, coinciding with the E-plane. The term H-plane means the principal plane which the mag-netic field is parallel to. The term E-plane means the principal plane which the electric field is parallel to.”; p.9 “In yet another embodiment, the arrangement in Fig. 2 is rotated 90 degrees, so that the arrays are still arranged in parallel but with one now on top of the other. The polarisation will be horizontal in this case.”),
the second lens is arranged substantially directly adjacent to the first lens in a direction of the length extension in a top view (fig 5a), and
Forslund does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Alamouti teaches
the length extension being smaller than the width extension (0015 “chip-array antenna 102 may generate wider incident beam 103 in the vertical plane and narrower incident beam 113 in the horizontal plane for incidence on inner surface 106 of millimeter-wave lens 104. Wider incident beam 103 may be converted to substantially non-diverging beam 112 by millimeter-wave lens 104, and narrower incident beam 113 may be converted to diverging beam 110 by millimeter-wave lens 104.”)
the first lens and the second lens are designed (Forslund teaches 2 lenses) so that a ratio between the length extension and the width extension of the first directivity of the radar signals or a second directivity of the radar signals is influenceable so that the radar signals with the first directivity, and thus with the length extension which is smaller than the width extension, is convertible into radar signals with the second directivity, and thus with a length extension which is larger than a width extension, and/or vice versa (0015 “chip-array antenna 102 may generate wider incident beam 103 in the vertical plane and narrower incident beam 113 in the horizontal plane for incidence on inner surface 106 of millimeter-wave lens 104. Wider incident beam 103 may be converted to substantially non-diverging beam 112 by millimeter-wave lens 104, and narrower incident beam 113 may be converted to diverging beam 110 by millimeter-wave lens 104.”; 0015 “Wider incident beam 103 may be converted to substantially non-diverging beam 112 by millimeter-wave lens 104, and narrower incident beam 113 may be converted to diverging beam 110 by millimeter-wave lens 104.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Alamouti with the teachings of Forslund. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve antenna systems (Alamouti 0003). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Alamouti merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular lens features. Since both Forslund and Alamouti disclose similar lenses for RF signals and antennas, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Forslund teaches The radar sensor as recited in claim 1, wherein the radar sensor is a short-range radar sensor (Title “SHORT RANGE RADAR SYSTEM”).
Regarding claim 4, Forslund teaches The radar sensor as recited in claim 1, wherein
the transmitter-side patch array antenna and/or the receiver-side patch array antenna each comprises at least two branches (p.7 “As shown in Fig. 2 the transmit antenna 102, includes a centrally fed array 107, fed via one channel. Two sub arrays 109 form a column 108.”), the at least two branches each comprising at least three serially connected patches (pf 3), and
in the top view, the at least two branches of the transmitter-side patch array antenna and/or of the receiver-side patch array antenna are aligned parallel and/or mirror-symmetrically along a first mirror axis which, in the top view, runs in the direction of the length extension (fig 3 [the patch array antennas are aligned parallel]).
Regarding claim 5, Forslund teaches The radar sensor as recited in claim 4, wherein,
the transmitter module and the receiver module are arranged relative to one another so that, in the top view, the at least two branches of the transmitter-side patch array antenna are aligned mirror-symmetrically with respect to the at least two branches of the receiver-side patch array antenna with respect to a second mirror axis which runs in a direction of the width extension, and the first mirror axis and the second mirror axis extend orthogonally with respect to each other (fig 3 [the TX and RX branches mirror reach other on the x-axis and the x and y axes are orthogonal]).
Regarding claim 6, Forslund teaches The radar sensor as recited in claim 4, wherein,
a number of the at least three serially connected patches of one of the at least two branches of the transmitter-side patch array antenna is greater than a number of the at least two branches of the transmitter-side patch array antenna by at least 1 so as to emit the radar signals with the first directivity, and/or
a number of the at least three serially connected patches of one of the at least two branches of the receiver-side patch array antenna is greater than a number of the at least two branches of the receiver-side patch array antenna by at least 1 so as to receive the radar signals with the first directivity (figs 2-3; p.9 “In an embodiment the transmit antenna 102 and the receive antenna 104 are ar- ranged side by side, with columns 108 parallel to each other, as shown in Fig 2. And the arrays 107 of patches 1 14 are thus vertically polarised.”).
Regarding claim 7, Forslund teaches The radar sensor as recited in claim 6, wherein
the number of the at least three serially connected patches per branch of the transmitter-side patch array antenna is selected to be odd (fig 1 [102 is 1 branch]), and the number of the at least two branches for transmitter-side patch array antenna is selected to be even (p.7 “Further Fig. 2 shows the receive antenna 104, which includes two channels, formed by two centrally fed columns 108, i.e. two columns of patches 1 14, positioned side by side”; fig 1 [104 is 2 branches]),
and/or the number of the at least three serially connected patches per branch of the receiver-side patch array antenna is selected to be odd, and the number of the at least two branches for the receiver-side patch array antenna is selected to be even.
Regarding claim 8, Forslund teaches The radar sensor as recited in claim 4, wherein the at least two branches of the transmitter-side patch array antenna and/or the at least two branches of receiver-side patch array antenna are each designed as a series-fed array (12) (fig 5b [104 is the receiver array with two serial patch antenna array branches].
Regarding claim 9, Forslund teaches The radar sensor as recited in claim 4, wherein the at least two branches each comprise, at an end thereof, at least one tapered patch (13) so as to reduce a beam angle (p.7 “In Fig. 2 (and other figures as well) the patches 1 14 in each array 107 appears to be equal in size, but in general, each sub array is preferably tapered, whereby the width differs slightly from individual patch to patch within each sub array in order to radiate according to a prescribed function with respect to amplitude and phase together with its op- posite half sub array 109.”).
Regarding claim 11, Forslund teaches The radar sensor as recited in claim 9, wherein the tapered patch (13), with respect to the at least three serially connected patches (11a-d), in the top view, comprises a patch width in the direction of the width extension of less than 90 % (fig 3 [the patch width is substantially smaller than 90% of the array length]).
Regarding claim 13, Forslund teaches The radar sensor as recited in claim 1,
Forslund does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Alamouti teaches
wherein, the first lens and/or the second lens has a diameter of less than 60 mm, and/or the first lens and/or the second lens comprises a dielectric material, and/or
the first lens and/or the second lens is of a planoconvex design (0026 “In some embodiments, millimeter-wave lens 104 may be made of a solid millimeter-wave dielectric material”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Alamouti with the teachings of Forslund. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve antenna systems (Alamouti 0003). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Alamouti merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular lens features. Since both Forslund and Alamouti disclose similar lenses for RF signals and antennas, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forslund et al. (WO 2013055272 hereinafter Forslund) in view of Alamouti et al. (US 20090315794 hereinafter Alamouti) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Nelson et al. (US 5999836 hereinafter Nelson).
Regarding claim 3, Forslund teaches The radar sensor as recited in claim 1,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Nelson teaches
wherein the length extension is smaller than the width extension so as to minimize a crosstalk of the transmitted radar signals on the receiver module (para 23 “The advantage of using a radiation beam of relatively small dimensions (either its two dimensional area cross-section which is typically defined as being normal to the beam axis or three dimensional volume cross-section in the case of a short pulse or a source with a short coherence length) is the ability to limit single and multiple scatter cross-talk contributions”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Nelson with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously minimize crosstalk (Nelson para 23). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Nelson merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular lens features. Since both the cited prior art and Nelson disclose similar beamforming features, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forslund et al. (WO 2013055272 hereinafter Forslund) in view of Alamouti et al. (US 20090315794 hereinafter Alamouti) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Nalbandian et al. (US 6166693 hereinafter Nalbandian).
Regarding claim 10, Forslund teaches The radar sensor as recited in claim 9,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Nalbandian teaches
wherein the at least two branches each comprise, at the end thereof, exactly one tapered patch (13) so as to further reduce a radiation pattern with respect to the length extension (claim 10 “a plurality of patches located on the upper and lower layers, where at least one of the patches is tapered for tapering the leaky wave radiation.”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Nalbandian with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce leaky wave radiation (Nalbandian claim 10). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Nalbandian merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular antenna features. Since both the cited prior art and Nalbandian disclose similar antennas, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forslund et al. (WO 2013055272 hereinafter Forslund) in view of Alamouti et al. (US 20090315794 hereinafter Alamouti) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20140043189 hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 12, Forslund teaches The radar sensor as recited in claim 4, wherein,
at least one of the transmitter module and the receiver module comprises a power divider (14) (p.7 “Fig. 2 shows the transmit antenna 102 and receive antenna 104, the antennas formed by arrays 107. An array 107 may include one or a plurality of columns 108, with each column 108 divided into sub arrays 109.”), and
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Lee teaches
the power divider (14) is configured symmetrically so that an output is divided uniformly between the at least two branches of the transmitter-side patch array antenna and/or of receiver-side patch array antenna (0013 “One of the simplest methods for feeding a related art patch array antenna is distributing input signals having a uniform magnitude to individual antenna elements of the array antenna by using a T-type power divider.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Lee with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously distribute power to the antenna system (Lee 0013). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Lee merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular antenna circuitry features. Since both the cited prior art and Lee disclose similar antenna features, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forslund et al. (WO 2013055272 hereinafter Forslund) in view of Alamouti et al. (US 20090315794 hereinafter Alamouti) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Choudhury et al. (US 20220352622 hereinafter Choudhury).
Regarding claim 14, Forslund teaches The radar sensor as recited in claim 1,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Choudhury teaches
wherein the radar sensor comprises a blind area which is smaller than 300 mm (0101 “The antenna structures provided herein provide suitable aerodynamics, high mmW coverage with minimal or no blind spots”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Choudhury with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce blind spots (Choudhury 0101). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Choudhury merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular lens features. Since both the cited prior art and Choudhury disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forslund et al. (WO 2013055272 hereinafter Forslund) in view of Alamouti et al. (US 20090315794 hereinafter Alamouti) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Shimizu (US 20080224918).
Regarding claim 15, Forslund teaches A vehicle or a mounting device for a vehicle comprising:
the radar sensor as recited in claim 1 (p.3 “system is installed on a vehicle”),
wherein, the radar sensor, in a first mounting option, is arranged on the vehicle transversely to a direction of motion so as to align the width extension of the directivity in a direction of the direction of motion, or the radar sensor, in a second mounting option, is arranged longitudinally to the direction of motion so as to align the length extension of the directivity in a direction of the direction of motion.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Shimizu teaches
wherein, the radar sensor, in a first mounting option, is arranged on the vehicle transversely to a direction of motion so as to align the width extension of the directivity in a direction of the direction of motion, or the radar sensor, in a second mounting option, is arranged longitudinally to the direction of motion so as to align the length extension of the directivity in a direction of the direction of motion (0024 “When such a type of radar apparatus is mounted on a vehicle, it is necessary to attach the radar apparatus to the vehicle such that the orientation direction (as defined above) of the antenna is accurately aligned with the direction of motion of the vehicle, i.e., coinciding with the longitudinal central axis of the vehicle.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Shimizu with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce calculation complexity for a radar arranged on a vehicle (Shimizu 0024). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Shimizu merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular antenna circuitry features. Since both the cited prior art and Shimizu disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forslund et al. (WO 2013055272 hereinafter Forslund) in view of Alamouti et al. (US 20090315794 hereinafter Alamouti) and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20140043189 hereinafter Lee), as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Kawasaki et al. (US 20220302577 hereinafter Kawasaki).
Regarding claim 16, Forslund teaches The vehicle or the mounting device for a vehicle as recited in claim 12, wherein the vehicle is:
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Kawasaki teaches
an agricultural utility vehicle or a mounting device for an agricultural utility vehicle, or a tractor (0109 “mounted in a moving object of any of an automobile, an electric vehicle, a hybrid electric vehicle, a motorcycle, a bicycle, a personal mobility, an airplane, a drone, a ship, a robot (mobile robot), a construction machine, an agricultural machine (tractor), and the like.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Kawasaki with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve target accuracy (Kawasaki 0005). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Kawasaki merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular antenna features on a tractor. Since both the cited prior art and Kawasaki disclose similar antenna features, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
KURIYAMA et al. (US 20200319293) discloses “Provided is an antenna which includes a plurality of radiating portions which are formed on a substrate and a plurality of dielectric lenses for respectively converting a spherical wave radiated from each radiating portion into a plane wave, wherein the shape of a cross section of each dielectric lens perpendicular to a radiation direction of a beam is formed in a shape which radiates a beam which is narrower in a second direction than in a first direction orthogonal to the second direction, and the plurality of dielectric lenses are arranged side by side in the second direction so that beams radiated from the respective dielectric lenses are synthesized. (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571) 272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached on (571) 270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights