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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 12/27/2024 has been considered.
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary Amendment filed on 12/27/2024 has been considered. In the preliminary Amendment, Applicant amended the specification and claim 1 and added claims 11-21.
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/879,573 filed on 12/27/2024 is presented for examination by the Examiner.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference signs mentioned in the description: “P2-1”, “P2-2’”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 6, 13, 19, 20 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.
Regarding claims 6, 13, said claims recite “a 1-1 pattern” and “1-2 pattern”. It is not clear what “1-1” and “1-2” refers to and the term “1-1” and “1-2” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide an explanation, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, it will be taken that the above quoted reference numbers mean “ a first pattern” and “a second pattern”.
Regarding claims 19, 20, said claims recite “a 2-1 pattern” and “2-2 pattern”. It is not clear what “2-1” and “2-2” refers to and the term “2-1” and “2-2” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide an explanation, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, it will be taken that the above quoted reference numbers mean “a third pattern” and “a fourth pattern”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 6-8, 11-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US 2021/0356748, hereinafter, “Cheng’) in view of Yun et al. (US 2024/0288608, hereinafter, “Yun”).
Regarding claim 1, Cheng discloses a light guide member 500 (Fig. 5) comprising:
at least one light guide among a first light guide 510, a second light guide 520, and a third light guide 530 (Fig. 5, [0031]-[0033]), wherein
each of the first light guide, the second light guide, and the third light guide includes a structure 512, 522, 532 that reacts to light of a different wavelength range (Fig. 5, [0031]-[0033]),
the first light guide includes a first substrate 510 and a first structure 512 arranged on the first substrate to react to light of a first wavelength range (Fig. 5, [0031]),
the first wavelength is 380 nm to 500 nm ([0031]),
Cheng does not disclose the first structure is formed as an aggregate of a plurality of first unit structures, a structure of the first unit structures includes a first protrusion, the first protrusion protrudes in a first direction, and the first protrusion is symmetrical in a second direction with respect to a line of a first direction passing through a center of the first unit structure.
Yun discloses an augmented reality (AR) device ([0007]). In one embodiment, the AR device includes a meta surface 10 comprising an aggregate of a plurality of first unit structures B (Fig. 1, 2, 9, [0044]). Each of the first unit structures B includes a first protrusion 12, with the first protrusion protruding in a first direction Λx and the first protrusion being symmetrical in a second direction Λy relative to a line of a first direction passing through a center of the first unit structure 11 (Fig. 2, 9, [0046], [0068]).
Both Cheng and Yun. disclose head mounted devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Cheng so that each of the structures 512, 522, 532 have the array structure with the particular form of the first unit structure, as taught by Yun, for providing an AR device with a wide field of view without degrading brightness uniformity and color uniformity of the virtual image ([0008]-[0009] in Yun).
Regarding claim 2, Cheng/Yun, discloses the light guide member according to claim 1, wherein the structure of the first unit structure is symmetrical in the second direction (Fig. 9 in Yun).
Regarding claim 6, Cheng/Yun, discloses the light guide member according to claim 1, wherein
the first structure includes a 1-1 pattern and a 1-2 pattern spaced apart from each other in the first direction, wherein the 1-1 pattern and the 1-2 pattern have a width in the first direction and a length in the second direction, and any one first unit structure among first unit structures adjacent in the first direction is the 1-1 pattern, and another first unit structure is the 1-2 pattern (Fig. 1 in Yun).
Regarding claim 7, Cheng/Yun, discloses the light guide member according to claim 1, wherein
the first structure of the first unit structure has a maximum pattern ratio of 70% or higher, and the maximum pattern ratio is defined as a ratio of a length of a maximum pattern line to a total length of a line having the maximum pattern line (Fig. 9 in Yun, see, for example, the pattern at the left or right edge of the figure).
Regarding claim 8, Cheng/Yun, discloses the light guide member according to claim 1, wherein
the second light guide includes a second substrate 520 and a second structure 522 arranged on the second substrate to react to light of a second wavelength range (Fig. 5, [0032] in Cheng),
the second wavelength is 600 nm to 700 nm ([0032] in Cheng),
the second structure is formed as an aggregate of a plurality of second unit structures B (Fig. 1, 2, 9, [0044] in Yun), a structure of the second unit structures includes a second protrusion 12, the second protrusion protrudes in the first direction Λx, and the second protrusion is symmetrical in the second direction Λy with respect to a line of a first direction passing through a center of the second unit structure (Fig. 2, 9, [0046], [0068] in Yun).
Regarding claim 11, Cheng/Yun, discloses the light guide member according to claim 1, wherein a length in the first direction and a length in the second direction of the first unit structure are the same ([0049] in Yun).
Regarding claim 12, Cheng/Yun, discloses the light guide member according to claim 1, wherein a length in the first direction and a length in the second direction of the first unit structure are different ([0049] in Yun).
Regarding claim 13, Cheng/Yun, discloses the light guide member according to claim 1, wherein
the first structure includes a 1-1 pattern and a 1-2 pattern spaced apart from each other in the first direction, wherein the 1-1 pattern and the 1-2 pattern have a width in the first direction and a length in the second direction, and the first unit structures adjacent in the first direction are the 1-1 pattern or the 1-2 pattern (Fig. 1 in Yun).
Regarding claim 14, Cheng/Yun, discloses the light guide member according to claim 1, wherein an area of the first structure 10 is 50% or more of the total area of the first unit structure 11 (Fig. 1 in Yun).
Regarding claim 15, Cheng/Yun, discloses the light guide member according to claim 8, wherein the second structure of the second unit structure is symmetrical in the second direction (Fig. 9 in Yun).
Regarding claim 16, Cheng/Yun, discloses the light guide member according to claim 8, wherein a length in the first direction and a length in the second direction of the second unit structure are the same ([0049] in Yun).
Regarding claim 17, Cheng/Yun, discloses the light guide member according to claim 8, wherein a length in the first direction and a length in the second direction of the second unit structure are different ([0049] in Yun).
Regarding claim 19, Cheng/Yun, discloses the light guide member according to claim 8, wherein
the second structure includes a 2-1 pattern and a 2-2 pattern spaced apart from each other in the first direction, wherein the 2-1 pattern and the 2-2 pattern have a width in the first direction and a length in the second direction, and any one second unit structure among second unit structures adjacent in the first direction is the 2-1 pattern, and another second unit structure is the 2-2 pattern (Fig. 1 in Yun).
Regarding claim 20, Cheng/Yun, discloses the light guide member according to claim 8, wherein
the second structure includes a 2-1 pattern and a 2-2 pattern spaced apart from each other in the first direction, wherein the 2-1 pattern and the 2-2 pattern have a width in the first direction and a length in the second direction, and the second unit structures adjacent in the first direction is the 2-1 pattern or the 2-2 pattern (Fig. 1 in Yun).
Claims 3-5, 9-10, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US 2021/0356748, hereinafter, “Cheng’) in view of Yun et al. (US 2024/0288608, hereinafter, “Yun”), as evidenced by Ma et al. (US 2023/0012003, hereinafter, “Ma”).
Regarding claim 3, Cheng/Yun, discloses the light guide member according to claim 1.
Cheng/Yun, does not disclose a thickness of the first structure satisfies equation 1,
First wavelength*0.25≤Thickness of first structure<First wavelength*0.75. [Equation 1].
However, Cheng/Yun, discloses that the thickness of the first structure 10 may be several tens of nm to several hundreds of nm in the visible light band ([0065] in Yun).
The parameter of the thickness of the meta surface is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, affecting the diffraction efficiency for the transmitted light ([0004] in Ma).
Cheng/Yun discloses the claimed invention except for the thickness of the structure being First wavelength*0.25≤Thickness of first structure<First wavelength*0.75.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Cheng/Yun so that the thickness of the structure lies within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
In the current instance, the thickness of the meta surface is an art recognized result- effective variable in that it helps realize a desired diffraction efficiency.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the thickness of the structure because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Regarding claim 4, Cheng/Yun, discloses the light guide member according to claim 1.
Cheng/Yun, does not disclose a length in the first direction and a length in the second direction of the first structure satisfy equation 2,
First wavelength*0.5≤Length in the first direction<First wavelength*0.75, or
First wavelength*0.5≤Length in the second direction<First wavelength*0.75, or
First wavelength*0.5≤Length in the first and second directions<first wavelength*0.75. [Equation 2].
However, Cheng/Yun, discloses that the length Λx of the unit structure 11 of the first structure 10 along the first direction and the length Λy along the second direction may be several hundreds of nm ([0064] in Yun).
The parameter of the width of the meta surface is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, affecting the diffraction efficiency for the transmitted light ([0004] in Ma).
Cheng/Yun discloses the claimed invention except for the length of the structure along the two dimensions being in the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Cheng/Yun so that the width of the structure lies within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
In the current instance, the width of the meta surface is an art recognized result- effective variable in that it helps realize a desired diffraction efficiency.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the thickness of the structure because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Regarding claim 5, Cheng/Yun, discloses the light guide member according to claim 1.
Cheng/Yun, does not disclose a length in the first direction and a length in the second direction of the first structure satisfy equation 3,
Length in the first direction*0.25≤Thickness of first structure ≤ Length in the first direction*0.75, or
Length in the second direction*0.25≤Thickness of first structure ≤ Length in the second direction*0.75, or
Length in the first and second directions*0.25≤Thickness of first structure ≤ Length in the first and second directions*0.75. [Equation 3]
However, Cheng/Yun, discloses that the length Λx of the unit structure 11 of the first structure 10 along the first direction and the length Λy along the second direction may be several hundreds of nm ([0064] in Yun). In addition, Cheng/Yun, discloses that the thickness of the first structure 10 may be several tens of nm to several hundreds of nm in the visible light band ([0065] in Yun).
The parameter of the width of the meta surface is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, affecting the diffraction efficiency for the transmitted light. In addition, the parameter of the thickness of the meta surface is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, affecting the diffraction efficiency for the transmitted light ([0004] in Ma).
Cheng/Yun discloses the claimed invention except for the thickness of the structure being in the claimed range relative to the length of the structure along the two dimensions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Cheng/Yun so that the thickness of the structure lies within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
In the current instance, the thickness of the meta surface is an art recognized result- effective variable in that it helps realize a desired diffraction efficiency.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the thickness of the structure because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Regarding claim 9, Cheng/Yun, discloses the light guide member according to claim 8.
Cheng/Yun, does not disclose a thickness of the second structure satisfies equation 4,
Second wavelength*0.25≤Thickness of second structure<Second wavelength*0.75. [Equation 4].
However, Cheng/Yun, discloses that the thickness of the second structure 10 may be several tens of nm to several hundreds of nm in the visible light band ([0065] in Yun).
The parameter of the thickness of the meta surface is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, affecting the diffraction efficiency for the transmitted light ([0004] in Ma).
Cheng/Yun discloses the claimed invention except for the thickness of the structure being Second wavelength*0.25≤Thickness of second structure<Second wavelength*0.75.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Cheng/Yun so that the thickness of the structure lies within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
In the current instance, the thickness of the meta surface is an art recognized result- effective variable in that it helps realize a desired diffraction efficiency.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the thickness of the structure because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Regarding claim 10, Cheng/Yun, discloses the light guide member according to claim 8.
Cheng/Yun, does not disclose a length in the first direction and a length in the second direction of the second structure satisfy equation 5,
Second wavelength*0.5≤Length in the first direction<Second wavelength*0.75, or
Second wavelength*0.5≤Length in the second direction<Second wavelength*0.75, or
Second wavelength*0.5≤Length in the first and second directions<Second wavelength*0.75. [Equation 2].
However, Cheng/Yun, discloses that the length Λx of the unit structure 11 of the first structure 10 along the first direction and the length Λy along the second direction may be several hundreds of nm ([0064] in Yun).
The parameter of the width of the meta surface is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, affecting the diffraction efficiency for the transmitted light ([0004] in Ma).
Cheng/Yun discloses the claimed invention except for the length of the structure along the two dimensions being in the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Cheng/Yun so that the width of the structure lies within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
In the current instance, the width of the meta surface is an art recognized result- effective variable in that it helps realize a desired diffraction efficiency.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the thickness of the structure because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Regarding claim 18, Cheng/Yun, discloses the light guide member according to claim 16.
Cheng/Yun, does not disclose a length in the first direction and a length in the second direction of the second structure satisfy equation 6,
Length in the first direction*0.5≤Thickness of second structure ≤ Length in the first direction*0.75, or
Length in the second direction*0.5≤Thickness of second structure ≤ Length in the second direction*0.75, or
Length in the first and second directions*0.5≤Thickness of second structure ≤ Length in the first and second directions*0.75. [Equation 6]
However, Cheng/Yun, discloses that the length Λx of the unit structure 11 of the first structure 10 along the first direction and the length Λy along the second direction may be several hundreds of nm ([0064] in Yun). In addition, Cheng/Yun, discloses that the thickness of the first structure 10 may be several tens of nm to several hundreds of nm in the visible light band ([0065] in Yun).
The parameter of the width of the meta surface is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, affecting the diffraction efficiency for the transmitted light. In addition, the parameter of the thickness of the meta surface is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, affecting the diffraction efficiency for the transmitted light ([0004] in Ma).
Cheng/Yun discloses the claimed invention except for the thickness of the structure being in the claimed range relative to the length of the structure along the two dimensions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Cheng/Yun so that the thickness of the structure lies within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
In the current instance, the thickness of the meta surface is an art recognized result- effective variable in that it helps realize a desired diffraction efficiency.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the thickness of the structure because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Regarding claim 21, Cheng/Yun, discloses the light guide member according to claim 17.
Cheng/Yun, does not disclose a length in the first direction and a length in the second direction of the second structure satisfy equation 6,
Length in the first direction*0.5≤Thickness of second structure ≤ Length in the first direction*0.75, or
Length in the second direction*0.5≤Thickness of second structure ≤ Length in the second direction*0.75, or
Length in the first and second directions*0.5≤Thickness of second structure ≤ Length in the first and second directions*0.75. [Equation 6]
However, Cheng/Yun, discloses that the length Λx of the unit structure 11 of the first structure 10 along the first direction and the length Λy along the second direction may be several hundreds of nm ([0064] in Yun). In addition, Cheng/Yun, discloses that the thickness of the first structure 10 may be several tens of nm to several hundreds of nm in the visible light band ([0065] in Yun).
The parameter of the width of the meta surface is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, affecting the diffraction efficiency for the transmitted light. In addition, the parameter of the thickness of the meta surface is a result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, affecting the diffraction efficiency for the transmitted light ([0004] in Ma).
Cheng/Yun discloses the claimed invention except for the thickness of the structure being in the claimed range relative to the length of the structure along the two dimensions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Cheng/Yun so that the thickness of the structure lies within the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
In the current instance, the thickness of the meta surface is an art recognized result- effective variable in that it helps realize a desired diffraction efficiency.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the thickness of the structure because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Feng (CN 111208648A) discloses a display screen comprising a meta surface with a periodic two dimensional pattern (Fig. 5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONIDAS BOUTSIKARIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4529. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fr. 9.00-5.00.
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, Stephone Allen, can be reached on 571-272-2434. 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.
/L.B./
Patent Examiner, AU 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights