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: “a receiving unit for receiving”, in Claim 9; “evaluation unit for dividing”, in Claim 9; “further optical system for capturing”, in claim 9; “an additional optical system for collimating”, in claim 11.
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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, line 1, “A method” should be changed to —The method—.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites a method determining an imaging quality of an optical system to be tested. This method comprise capturing an optical wavefront profile in a measurement plane, dividing the measurement plane into a plurality of subapertures; ascertaining a partial optical wavefront profile for each subaperture and determining a partial optical imaging quality.
As can be seen from the above description, the thrust of the claim invention is to gather data about a wavefront profile, performing mathematical calculations as dividing measurement plane, ascertaining a partial optical profile and determining optical imaging quality.
As a result of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim invention, the limitations drawn to “capturing an optical wavefront profile” is data gathering, it’s getting data from an interface which is considered obtaining data necessary for the abstract mental steps, see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations “dividing measurement plane, ascertaining a partial optical profile and determining optical imaging quality” is analyzing information through mathematical algorithms. Such process is considered an abstract idea. Additionally, even if the claimed abstract idea was performed on a special purpose computer, it has also been held that using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process is not significantly more than the judicial exception when the steps of the process are recited at a high level of generality and merely use computers as a tool to perform the process. See Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Claim 1 recites additional elements as “optical system”, “exit pupil”. These elements do not impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. As the “optical system”, “exit pupil” are not claimed with sufficient specificity, and no limitations are provided as to how is related “gather data about a wavefront profile, performing mathematical calculations as dividing measurement plane, ascertaining a partial optical profile and determining optical imaging quality. There are not steps as to how the wavefront is data is provided; instead, the claim only states the data is provided “capturing”. Therefore, without any meaningfully claimed limitation as to how the data is obtained, it is not possible for the claim abstract idea to be integrated into a judicial exception. Thus, it is not seen that the claims as a whole integrates the metal process or mathematic formula into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for similar reasons as set forth above as to why the claim is not integrated into a practical application. There do not appear to be any additional limitations in the claim other than the abstract idea of providing data and determining information about the first ingredient from that data. As there are no additional limitations, it is not possible for the claim to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As a result, claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 3, the claim only set for gathering data such as measurement volume.
Regarding Claims 4-8, the claims further limits performing mathematical calculations as dividing measurement plane, ascertaining a partial optical profile and calculating wavefront profile and determining image quality.
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 1-2 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikitin, Alexander, et al. ("A device based on the Shack-Hartmann wave front sensor for testing wide aperture optics." Photonic Instrumentation Engineering III. Vol. 9754. SPIE, 2016, included in IDS on 09/27/2024), hereafter Nikitin, in view of Gwosch et al. (US 2022/0381643 A1), hereafter Gwosch.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Nikitin teaches a device (Fig. 3) and method for determining an imaging quality of an optical system (Fig. 3 element subject under test) to be tested, [page 3, first paragraph], Additionally the term " for determining an imaging quality of an optical system to be tested " in the claim merely designates an intended use which does not carry enough weight so as to patentably distinguish from the cited prior See MPEP 2111.02), the device comprising:
a further optical system (Fig. 3 elements “divergent lens + collimating lens + beam splitter + eyepiece + + SHWS) for capturing an optical wavefront profile (Fig. 3 element “wavefront”) in a measurement plane of the optical system (“surface to be tested”) to be tested, (as shown in Fig. 3), [page 3, first paragraph]; and
an evaluation unit (Fig. 3 element “Shack-Hartmann Wavefront Sensor” (SHWS), [page 2, first paragraph]; for dividing the measurement plane into a plurality of subapertures, (as shown in Fig. 4, “The wavefront surface is divided into a number of beamlets by two-dimensional sub-apertures of the lenslet array”, [page 3, second paragraph]), for ascertaining a partial optical wavefront profile for each subaperture of the plurality of subapertures of the measurement plane using the wavefront profile, (The wavefront measurement by SHWFS is based on the measurements of local slopes of a distorted wavefront relative to a reference wavefront and the deviations of the focal spots from some reference positions corresponding to a reference wavefront are measured in each subaperture on a detector array matrix. The displacement of each spot is proportional to the local tilt of WF in the apertures of microlenses [page 3, second and third paragraphs]), and for determining a partial optical imaging quality for each of the subapertures using the ascertained partial optical wavefront profiles, ( the device determine the local gradients of each subaperture based on the measuring the shift of each focal spots and the Zernike coefficients can be determined using the least-square solution allowing to generate WF map, reconstruct fringes pattern and obtain Intensity distribution thus represent partial optical imaging quality, [page 4, lines 1-19]).
Nikitin do not clearly teach: (claim 9) a receiving unit for receiving the optical system to be tested. (claim 1 and 9) a further optical system for capturing an optical wavefront profile in a measurement plane behind an exit pupil of the optical system to be tested.
However, Gwosch related to optical measuring device and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches: (claim 9) a receiving unit (Fig. 1 element 18) for receiving the optical system (Fig. 1 element 5) to be tested, [0059]; (claim 1 and 9) a further optical system (Fig. element 14) for capturing an optical wavefront profile in a measurement plane (Fig. 1 element 15), [0056-0058] behind an exit pupil (Fig. 1 element 21) of the optical system to be tested (Fig. 1 element 5), [0064]).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nikitin by including a receiving unit for receiving the optical system to be tested, a further optical system for capturing an optical wavefront profile in a measurement plane behind an exit pupil of the optical system to be tested (as taught by Gwosch) for several advantages such as: device allow to determine, the imaging quality of an optical system when illuminated with illumination light within an exit pupil to be measured by determining compressed Zernike polynomials and/or scaled coordinate grids and uniformly scaled parameterized basis functions, thus increase the device versability, ([0027], Gwosch).
Regarding claim 2, Nikitin in the combination outlined above teaches the method according to claim 1.
Nikitin further teaches wherein, in the step of capturing, the wavefront profile in the measurement plane is captured using a wavefront sensor, ((Fig. 3 element “SHWFS”), [page 3, first paragraph]).
Regarding claim 10, Nikitin in the combination outlined above teaches the device according to claim 9, when the optical system to be tested is received by the receiving unit, (Gwosch, [0059]).
Nikitin further teaches a light source (Fig. 1 element “fiber coupled single-mode laser”, [page 3, first paragraph]) for illuminating the optical system (Fig. 1 element “surface to be tested”) to be tested.
Regarding claim 11, Nikitin in the combination outlined above teaches the device according to claim 10.
Nikitin further teaches wherein an additional optical system (Fig. 3 element collimating lens and/or eyepiece) for collimating the light rays coming from the light source (Fig. 3 element “fiber coupled single-mode laser”), [page 6, first paragraph] is arranged downstream of the light source, (as shown in Fig 3).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikitin, in view of Gwosch and further in view of Pettit et al. (US 2022/0189608 A1), hereafter Pettit.
Regarding claim 3, Nikitin in the combination outlined above teaches the method according to claim 1.
The modified device of Nikitin fail to teach defining a measurement volume before the step of capturing, wherein the measurement plane represents a cross-sectional area of the measurement volume.
Pettit related to optical measuring system and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches defining a measurement volume before the step of capturing, wherein the measurement plane represents a cross-sectional area of the measurement volume, (The device obtained pre-operative anatomic data (Fig. 2 element 11) that include biometric data and may be obtained from at least one imaging device 22, [0022]. As show in Fig. 1 element 40 the anatomic data comprise size and position and tilt relative to XYZ coordinate and the position of the lens iris and pupil in a three dimensions in an XYZ coordinate system “volume”, a cross-sectional area of the measurement volume [0024-0026]. After the pre-operative data is determined further steps 120-140 are performed, such as in step 140 that device execute ray tracing to assess the impact of chromatic aberration on retinal image quality, [0032]. Also after step 120 the device performed such as a wavefront measurement by an aberrometer device 314, such as a Hartmann-Shack aberrometer “capturing” in step 156, [0040]).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of Nikitin by including defining a measurement volume before the step of capturing, wherein the measurement plane represents a cross-sectional area of the measurement volume, (as taught by Pettit) for several advantages such as: allow to select the preferred intraocular lens for implantation that fits best the desired visual quality of the subject based in part on a comparison of the respective metrics obtained in sub-blocks 146 and 156 of block 140 above, thus increase the device versability, ([0041], Pettit).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikitin, in view of Gwosch and further in view of Wegmann et al. (US 2018/0087891 A1), hereafter Wegmann.
Regarding claims 4-6, Nikitin in the combination outlined above teaches the method.
The modified device of Nikitin is silent about: (claim 4) capturing a further optical wavefront profile in a further measurement plane and ascertaining a further partial optical wavefront profile for each further subaperture of a plurality of further subapertures of the further measurement plane using the further wavefront profile, (claim 5) calculating at least one further wavefront profile in a further measurement plane using the wavefront profile of the measurement plane, ascertaining a further partial optical wavefront profile for each further subaperture of a plurality of further subapertures of the further measurement plane using the further wavefront profile, (claim 6) determining a further partial optical imaging quality for each further subaperture of the plurality of further subapertures of the further measurement plane behind the exit pupil of the optical system.
Wegmann related to optical measuring device and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches: (claim 4) capturing a further optical wavefront profile (Fig 14 and 17 elements 128 AND/OR 130, [0108, 0110]) in a further measurement plane (Fig. 14 and 17 element 102 AND/OR 104), [0106], (The device captured wavefronts 128 and 130 from two objects that each are located in a measurement plane. Such as, element 102 is in a further measurement plane than the measurement plane of element 104, [0121]), (claim 5) calculating at least one further wavefront profile in a further measurement plane using the wavefront profile of the measurement plane, [0108, 0110], (claim 6) determining a further optical imaging quality for the further measurement plane, (determining aberration [0024, 0121]).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of Nikitin by including capturing a further optical wavefront profile in a further measurement plane, calculating at least one further wavefront profile in a further measurement plane using the wavefront profile of the measurement plane, determining a further optical imaging quality for the further measurement plane (as taught by Wegmann) for several advantages such as: allowing to simultaneously measuring more than two surfaces, thus increase the device efficiency, ([0112], Wegmann).
Wegmann is silent about (claims 4-5) ascertaining a further partial optical wavefront profile for each further subaperture of a plurality of further subapertures of the further measurement plane using the further wavefront profile, (claim 6) determining a further partial optical imaging quality for each further subaperture of the plurality of further subapertures of the further measurement plane behind the exit pupil of the optical system.. However, the modified device of Nikitin teaches (claim 4-5) capturing optical wavefront profile in measurement plane, [page 3, first paragraph, Nikitin] and ascertaining a partial optical wavefront profile for each subaperture of a plurality of subapertures of the measurement plane using the wavefront profile, [page 3, first-third paragraphs, Nikitin], [page 4, lines 1-19, Nikitin], (claim 6) determining a partial optical imaging quality for each subaperture of the plurality of subapertures of the measurement plane, ([page 4, lines 1-19]). Nikitin) behind the exit pupil of the optical system,, ([0056-0058], Gwosch). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the modified device of Nikitin perform a known function of ascertaining a partial optical wavefront profile for each subaperture of a plurality of subapertures of the further measurement plane using the wavefront profile, determining a partial optical imaging quality for each subaperture of the plurality of subapertures of the measurement plane, behind the exit pupil of the optical system and is predictable to apply the same function to a further partial optical wavefront profile for each subaperture of the plurality of subapertures of the measurement plane.
Therefore, it would be “obvious to try” to ascertaining a further partial optical wavefront profile for each further subaperture of a plurality of further subapertures of the further measurement plane using the further wavefront profile and determining a further partial optical imaging quality for each further subaperture of the plurality of further subapertures of the further measurement plane, behind the exit pupil of the optical system and is predictable to apply the same function to a further partial optical wavefront profile for each further subaperture of the plurality of further subapertures of the further measurement plane with the same or modified device since achieves the predictable result measuring the shape of optical surfaces in order to measure a wavefront aberration of an optical system thus allows simultaneously measuring more than two surfaces, thus increase the device efficiency. Moreover the duplication of a measuring procedure is a matter of obviousness since it at most replicates’ elements taught by (the modified device of Nikitin) without altering the design, function, and/or mode of operation of the general teaching concept of (the modified device of Nikitin). Therefore, such a duplication are performed as result of routine optimization in order to increase efficiency of the measurement process, (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikitin, Gwosch and Wegmann, and further in view of Unno et al. (US 2014/0139825 A1), hereafter Unno.
Regarding claim 7, Nikitin in the combination outlined above teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein, in the step of calculating, the further wavefront profile in the further measurement plane is calculated, [0112], Wegmann).
The modified device of Nikitin fail to teach of calculating, the wavefront profile in the measurement plane is calculated using a ray tracing algorithm.
However, Unno related to optical measuring device and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches calculating, the wavefront profile in the measurement plane is calculated using a ray tracing algorithm, [0057, 0060].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of Nikitin by including calculating, the wavefront profile in the measurement plane is calculated using a ray tracing algorithm (as taught by Unno) for several advantages such as: the arrangement error of the test optical system can be eliminated, and the wavefront aberration of the test optical system can be accurately measured, thus increase the device accuracy, ([0066], Unno).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikitin, Gwosch and Wegmann, and further in view of Shen et al. (CN 114185114 A), hereafter Shen.
Regarding claim 8, Nikitin in the combination outlined above teaches the method according to claim 4.
The modified device of Nikitin teaches the size plurality of subapertures, [page 6, third paragraph]. However Nikitin fail to teach wherein a size of the plurality of subapertures differs from a size of the plurality of further subapertures.
Shen related to optical measurements system and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches a size of the plurality of subapertures, [page 5, first paragraph]. However, even though Chen is silent about wherein a size of the plurality of subapertures differs from a size of the plurality of further subapertures, Shen discloses that the sub-aperture of any size it can be adjusted. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size of the sub-apertures (as taught by the combination of Nikitin in further view of Shen.) with a size of the plurality of subapertures differs from a size of the plurality of further subapertures without deviating from the general teaching concept of Jidai et al. and Hong et al. since such a modification constitutes only a change of form, proportions, or degree, which has been held to be a matter of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 Section II-A) in under the condition of ensuring the surface type precision, thus increase the device accuracy, [page 5, first paragraph, Chen], also in order to attain a particular design choice, (see MPEP 2144.05 Section II-A).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of Nikitin by including a size of the plurality of subapertures (as taught by Shen) for several advantages such as: allows the condition of ensuring the surface type precision in the sub-apertures, thus increase the device accuracy, ([page 5, first paragraph, Shen]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikitin, in view of Gwosch and further in view of Vankerkhove et al. (US 2013/0054192 A1), hereafter Vankerkhove.
Regarding claim 12, Nikitin in the combination outlined above teaches the device according to claim 9.
The modified device of Nikitin fail to teach wherein the further optical system is pivotable at an angle with respect to an optical axis of the optical system to be tested.
Vankerkhove related to wavefront measuring device and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the further optical system (Fig. 1 element 12) is pivotable at an angle with respect to an optical axis of the optical system (Fig. 1 element 18) to be tested, [0029, 0035].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of Nikitin by including wherein the further optical system is pivotable at an angle with respect to an optical axis of the optical system to be tested, (as taught by Vankerkhove) for several advantages such as: the pivotable optical system comprises a first translational axis that allow to maintain different centers of curvature associated with the intended local shape of the aspheric surface at a crossing point of the first and second rotational axes through the plurality of subaperture measurement positions, and a second translational axis that allow to maintain the subapertures of the aspheric surface conjugate to the detector, thus increase the device accuracy , ([0011] Vankerkhove).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikitin, in view of Gwosch and further in view of Suchkov et al. (US 2023/0131746 A1), hereafter Suchkov.
Regarding claim 13, Nikitin in the combination outlined above teaches the device according to claim 9.
Nikitin further teaches wherein the further optical system for capturing the optical wavefront profile comprises a Shack-Hartmann sensor, ((Fig. 3 element “SHWFS”), [page 3, first paragraph]).
The modified device of Nikitin fail to teach wherein the further optical system for capturing the optical wavefront profile comprises a telescope.
Suchkov related to wavefront measuring device and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the further optical system for capturing the optical wavefront profile comprises a telescope, (Fig. 1 element 146, [0134]), (the device capture the wavefront generated by the test object 112 and is transmitted to the wavefront sensing unit 128 by element 146, [0128-0129]).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of Nikitin by including wherein the further optical system for capturing the optical wavefront profile comprises a telescope, (as taught by Schkov) for several advantages such as: allow for the precise transfer of an image plane or pupil plane from one location to another, enabling extended optical paths, image inversion and the ability to insert intermediate optical elements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS G PEREZ-GUZMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3904. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/CARLOS PEREZ-GUZMAN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2877