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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued on P. 12 with respect to independent claims 1, 10 & 18 that “Because the cited combinations do not disclose or suggest all the claim elements of claims 1, 10, or 18 the cited combination does not establish prima facie obviousness”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, Choi teaches “For the first and second antenna arrays 211, 212, shapes of the body frame 220 are spherical and hemispherical, respectively. As FIG. 2 shows an example that the plurality of horn-antenna elements 230 is uniformly distributed over the body frame 220, FOVs offered by the first and second antenna arrays 211, 212 are approximately 360° and 180°, respectively” (Par. 0045); therefore, the antennas are likewise sequentially and spirally distributed on the spherical / contoured structure; and since they have an approximately 360° field of view, their pattern would likewise be a non-zero antenna power pattern in the far field for all values of θ and Φ and the claims do not distinguish over what would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date as shown in the rejection below. Thus the rejection is maintained. In order to overcome the rejection, the examiner suggests to amend the claims to distinguish the structure over that of the prior art. Applicant's representative is invited to telephone the examiner for any clarification of any matter in this case.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: Newly amended claim 22 recites the limitation “multiple frequencies” in the third line, however, this limitation was removed from claim 21 upon which claim 22 depends on, and was replaced with all frequencies, thus claim 22 should be corrected accordingly. For purposes of Examination, it will be treated as all frequencies from claim 21. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams et al. US Patent Application Publication 2023/0104894 and Choi US Patent Application Publication 2021/0313687.
Regarding Claim 1, Adams et al. teaches a transmit antenna (Abstract Figs. 1-4, 6) comprising:
a structure (110 Fig. 1 Par. 0024) having a plurality of antennas (“The antenna element 100 also includes circuit board-like sections to form a unit cell in a periodic antenna array environment” Par. 0024 Fig. 1 / 100a-n Fig. 4 Par. 0035) and one or more inputs (feed lines 106 and 108 Par. 0026, 0036 Figs. 1, 4), the plurality of antennas arranged in an array and attached to a surface of the structure (“an antenna array (or PAA), which may be affixed or incorporated in curved or conformal structures (e.g., aircraft bodies)” Par. 0005 Figs. 1, 4, 6), the antenna configured to have a different radiated polarization based at least in part on an angle Φ relative to the antenna (“the dual electrical feed lines 106 and 108 excite orthogonal dual-linear polarizations” Par. 0030 orthogonal implies 90 degree angle relative to the antenna as seen in Fig. 1); and
the one or more inputs electrically coupled to a distribution, the distribution distributing a first current and a second current to each antenna of the plurality of antennas (“The feed lines 106 and 108 provide electrical supply that excite orthogonal resonant modes” Par. 0028; “When transmitting RF signals, the electrical feed lines supply the RF power to generate electrical resonance in the square ring slot 102 that, then, generates the desired RF signal in the square ring patch 104. When receiving RF signals, the electrical feed lines receive RF power induced in the square ring slot 102 from the square ring patch 104 receiving an RF signal” Par. 0028; “parallel-feed distribution network” Par. 0035).
Adams et al. does not explicitly teach a spherical structure, the plurality of antennas arranged in a sequentially and spirally distributed array and attached to a surface of the spherical structure; the spherical structure configured to transmit a non-zero antenna power pattern in the far field for all values of θ and Φ.
However, Choi teaches a spherical structure (“The curved surface on which the plurality of horn-antenna elements is installed is advantageously chosen to be hemispherical or spherical” Par. 0042; “A first antenna array 211 is spherical in shape” Par. 0045); the plurality of antennas arranged in a sequentially and spirally distributed array and attached to a surface of the spherical structure (“As FIG. 2 shows an example that the plurality of horn-antenna elements 230 is uniformly distributed over the body frame 220” Par. 0045); the spherical structure configured to transmit a non-zero antenna power pattern in the far field for all values of θ and Φ (“FOVs offered by the first and second antenna arrays 211, 212 are approximately 360° and 180°, respectively” Par. 0045 which implies non-zero antenna power pattern in the far field since the antenna elements are uniformly distributed on the spherical structure).
In this particular case, providing the antenna array on a spherical structure and attaching the plurality of antennas arranged in a sequentially and spirally distributed array on the spherical structure, and configured to transmit a non-zero antenna power pattern in the far field for all values of θ and Φ is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Choi in order to obtain a nearly uniform radiating pattern with approximately 360° Field Of View.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the structure of Adams et al. to be a spherical structure, the plurality of antennas arranged in a sequentially and spirally distributed array and attached to a surface of the spherical structure; the spherical structure configured to transmit a non-zero antenna power pattern in the far field for all values of θ and Φ based on the teachings of Choi as a result effect in order to improve the antenna performance by providing a nearly uniform radiating pattern with approximately 360° Field Of View.
Regarding Claim 2, Adams et al. as modified teaches the antenna of claim 1 as shown in the rejection above.
Adams et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the first current is described by
K
θ
r
,
t
=
K
~
0
c
o
s
(
ω
t
±
Φ
)
and the second current is described by
K
Φ
r
,
t
=
±
K
~
0
cos
θ
s
i
n
(
ω
t
±
Φ
)
.
However, Adams et al. teaches “In the shown implementation, the feed lines 106 and 108 provide two orthogonal polarizations that are each fed independently. By applying a time-delay or phase gradient across the different columns of the array, one-dimensional (1D) antenna beam scanning (left-to-right or right-to-left) may be achieved” Par. 0036.
In this particular case, generic formulas/equations for current wave in time domain is common and well known in the antenna art and used to achieve the desired antenna beam.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize formulas/equations for current wave in time domain in order to achieve the desired antenna beam.
Regarding Claim 3, Adams et al. as modified teaches the antenna of claim 1 as shown in the rejection above.
Adams et al. does not explicitly teach wherein an electric current density
K
θ
r
,
t
=
K
θ
r
,
t
θ
^
θ
,
Φ
+
K
Φ
r
,
t
Φ
^
(
Φ
)
rotates azimuthally on the surface of the sphere, wherein at any fixed spatial location r on the surface of the sphere, the orthogonal
θ
^
θ
,
Φ
and
Φ
^
Φ
components of
K
r
,
t
are
π
2
radians out of phase.
However, Adams et al. teaches “In the shown implementation, the feed lines 106 and 108 provide two orthogonal polarizations that are each fed independently. By applying a time-delay or phase gradient across the different columns of the array, one-dimensional (1D) antenna beam scanning (left-to-right or right-to-left) may be achieved” Par. 0036.
In this particular case, generic formulas/equations for an electric current density in time domain is common and well known in the antenna art and used to achieve the desired antenna beam.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize formulas/equations for an electric current density in time domain in order to achieve the desired antenna beam.
Regarding Claim 4, Adams et al. as modified teaches wherein the electric current density is a θ-dependent elliptical polarization over the surface of the sphere (implied from the combination of “dual-linear polarizations and circular polarization” Par. 0018).
Regarding Claim 5, Adams et al. as modified teaches the antenna of claim 3 as shown in the rejection above.
Adams et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the electric current density is a degenerate circular polarization at poles
θ
=
0
,
π
.
However, Adams et al. teaches “In the shown implementation, the feed lines 106 and 108 provide two orthogonal polarizations that are each fed independently. By applying a time-delay or phase gradient across the different columns of the array, one-dimensional (1D) antenna beam scanning (left-to-right or right-to-left) may be achieved” Par. 0036.
In this particular case, configuring the phase polarization for 0 and 180 degrees (angle in space) is common and well known in the antenna art and used to achieve the desired antenna beam.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the electric current density to be a degenerate circular polarization at 0 and 180 degrees in order to achieve the desired antenna beam.
Regarding Claim 6, Adams et al. as modified teaches wherein the electric current density is linearly polarized at θ=π/2 (90 degrees implied from “the dual electrical feed lines 106 and 108 excite orthogonal dual-linear polarizations” Par. 0030).
Regarding Claim 7, Adams et al. as modified teaches further configured to be frequency independent (“the feed lines 106 and 108 provide two orthogonal polarizations that are each fed independently” Par. 0036; “the antenna elements 100 a-n may be configured to operate within a K-band frequency range (e.g., about 20 GHz to 40 GHz for NATO K-band and 18 GHz to 26.5 GHz for IEEE K-band)” Par. 0037).
Regarding Claim 8, Adams et al. as modified teaches the antenna of claim 3 as shown in the rejection above.
Adams et al. does not explicitly teach wherein a radiation pattern is proportional to
1
+
c
o
s
i
n
e
2
θ
.
However, Adams et al. teaches “the relative amplitudes and phases of the respective signals feeding the array elements may be varied in a way that the effect on the total radiation pattern of the PAA is reinforced in desired directions and suppressed in undesired directions. In other words, a beam may be generated that may be pointed in or steered into different directions. Beam pointing in a transmit or receive PAA is achieved by controlling the amplitude and phase of the transmitted or received signal from each antenna element in the PAA” Par. 0002 and “he individual radiated signals are combined to form the constructive and destructive interference patterns produced by the PAA that result in one or more antenna beams. The PAA may then be used to point the beam, or beams, rapidly in azimuth and elevation.” Par. 0003.
In this particular case, configuring the antenna radiation pattern is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Adams et al. to obtain the desired beam.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the radiation pattern to be proportional to
1
+
c
o
s
i
n
e
2
θ
based on the teachings of Adams et al. as a result effect in order to obtain the desired beam.
Regarding Claim 9, Adams et al. as modified teaches wherein the plurality of antennas are patch antennas (patch Par. 0005).
Regarding Claim 10, Adams et al. teaches a conformal transmit (abstract) antenna (“an antenna array (or PAA), which may be affixed or incorporated in curved or conformal structures (e.g., aircraft bodies)” Par. 0005 Figs. 1, 4, 6) comprising:
a contoured structure (110 Fig. 1 Par. 0024) having a plurality of antennas (“The antenna element 100 also includes circuit board-like sections to form a unit cell in a periodic antenna array environment” Par. 0024 Fig. 1 / 100a-n Fig. 4 Par. 0035) and one or more inputs (feed lines 106 and 108 Par. 0026, 0036 Figs. 1, 4), the plurality of antennas arranged to conform and attach to a surface of the contoured structure forming an array (“an antenna array (or PAA), which may be affixed or incorporated in curved or conformal structures (e.g., aircraft bodies)” Par. 0005 Figs. 1, 4, 6), the conformal antenna array configured to have a different radiated polarization based at least in part on an angle Φ relative to the conformal antenna (“the dual electrical feed lines 106 and 108 excite orthogonal dual-linear polarizations” Par. 0030 orthogonal implies 90 degree angle relative to the antenna as seen in Fig. 1); and
the one or more inputs electrically coupled to a distribution, the distribution distributing a first current and a second current to each antenna of the plurality of antennas (“The feed lines 106 and 108 provide electrical supply that excite orthogonal resonant modes” Par. 0028; “When transmitting RF signals, the electrical feed lines supply the RF power to generate electrical resonance in the square ring slot 102 that, then, generates the desired RF signal in the square ring patch 104. When receiving RF signals, the electrical feed lines receive RF power induced in the square ring slot 102 from the square ring patch 104 receiving an RF signal” Par. 0028; “parallel-feed distribution network” Par. 0035).
Adams et al. does not explicitly teach the plurality of antennas arranged in a sequentially and distributed array, the contoured structure configured to transmit a non-zero antenna power pattern in the far field for all values of θ and Φ.
However, Choi teaches the plurality of antennas arranged in a sequentially distributed array (“As FIG. 2 shows an example that the plurality of horn-antenna elements 230 is uniformly distributed over the body frame 220” Par. 0045); the contoured structure configured to transmit a non-zero antenna power pattern in the far field for all values of θ and Φ (“FOVs offered by the first and second antenna arrays 211, 212 are approximately 360° and 180°, respectively” Par. 0045 which implies non-zero antenna power pattern in the far field since the antenna elements are uniformly distributed on the spherical structure).
In this particular case, providing the antenna array on a contoured / spherical structure and attaching the plurality of antennas arranged in a sequentially distributed array on the contoured / spherical structure, and configured to transmit a non-zero antenna power pattern in the far field for all values of θ and Φ is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Choi in order to obtain a nearly uniform radiating pattern with approximately 360° Field Of View.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the plurality of antennas of Adams et al. to be arranged in a sequentially distributed array on the contoured / spherical structure and configured to transmit a non-zero antenna power pattern in the far field for all values of θ and Φ based on the teachings of Choi as a result effect in order to improve the antenna performance by providing a nearly uniform radiating pattern with approximately 360° Field Of View.
Regarding Claim 11, Adams et al. as modified teaches the conformal antenna array of claim 10 as shown in the rejection above.
Adams et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the first current is described by
K
θ
r
,
t
=
K
~
0
c
o
s
(
ω
t
±
Φ
)
and the second current is described by
K
Φ
r
,
t
=
±
K
~
0
cos
θ
s
i
n
(
ω
t
±
Φ
)
.
However, Adams et al. teaches “In the shown implementation, the feed lines 106 and 108 provide two orthogonal polarizations that are each fed independently. By applying a time-delay or phase gradient across the different columns of the array, one-dimensional (1D) antenna beam scanning (left-to-right or right-to-left) may be achieved” Par. 0036.
In this particular case, generic formulas/equations for current wave in time domain is common and well known in the antenna art and used to achieve the desired antenna beam.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize formulas/equations for current wave in time domain in order to achieve the desired antenna beam.
Regarding Claim 12, Adams et al. as modified teaches the conformal antenna array of claim 10 as shown in the rejection above.
Adams et al. does not explicitly teach wherein an electric current density
K
θ
r
,
t
=
K
θ
r
,
t
θ
^
θ
,
Φ
+
K
Φ
r
,
t
Φ
^
(
Φ
)
rotates azimuthally on the surface of the contoured structure, wherein at any fixed spatial location r on the surface of the contoured structure, the orthogonal
θ
^
θ
,
Φ
and
Φ
^
Φ
components of
K
r
,
t
are
π
2
radians out of phase.
However, Adams et al. teaches “In the shown implementation, the feed lines 106 and 108 provide two orthogonal polarizations that are each fed independently. By applying a time-delay or phase gradient across the different columns of the array, one-dimensional (1D) antenna beam scanning (left-to-right or right-to-left) may be achieved” Par. 0036.
In this particular case, generic formulas/equations for an electric current density in time domain is common and well known in the antenna art and used to achieve the desired antenna beam.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize formulas/equations for an electric current density in time domain in order to achieve the desired antenna beam.
Regarding Claim 13, Adams et al. as modified teaches wherein the electric current density is a θ-dependent elliptical polarization over the surface of the contoured structure (implied from the combination of “dual-linear polarizations and circular polarization” Par. 0018).
Regarding Claim 14, Adams et al. as modified teaches the conformal antenna array of claim 12 as shown in the rejection above.
Adams et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the electric current density is a degenerate circular polarization at poles
θ
=
0
,
π
.
However, Adams et al. teaches “In the shown implementation, the feed lines 106 and 108 provide two orthogonal polarizations that are each fed independently. By applying a time-delay or phase gradient across the different columns of the array, one-dimensional (1D) antenna beam scanning (left-to-right or right-to-left) may be achieved” Par. 0036.
In this particular case, configuring the phase polarization for 0 and 180 degrees (angle in space) is common and well known in the antenna art and used to achieve the desired antenna beam.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the electric current density to be a degenerate circular polarization at 0 and 180 degrees in order to achieve the desired antenna beam.
Regarding Claim 15, Adams et al. as modified teaches wherein the electric current density is linearly polarized at θ=π/2 (90 degrees implied from “the dual electrical feed lines 106 and 108 excite orthogonal dual-linear polarizations” Par. 0030).
Regarding Claim 16, Adams et al. as modified teaches further configured to be frequency independent (“the feed lines 106 and 108 provide two orthogonal polarizations that are each fed independently” Par. 0036; “the antenna elements 100 a-n may be configured to operate within a K-band frequency range (e.g., about 20 GHz to 40 GHz for NATO K-band and 18 GHz to 26.5 GHz for IEEE K-band)” Par. 0037).
Regarding Claim 17, Adams et al. as modified teaches the conformal antenna array of claim 10 as shown in the rejection above.
Adams et al. does not explicitly teach wherein a radiation pattern is proportional to
1
+
c
o
s
i
n
e
2
θ
.
However, Adams et al. teaches “the relative amplitudes and phases of the respective signals feeding the array elements may be varied in a way that the effect on the total radiation pattern of the PAA is reinforced in desired directions and suppressed in undesired directions. In other words, a beam may be generated that may be pointed in or steered into different directions. Beam pointing in a transmit or receive PAA is achieved by controlling the amplitude and phase of the transmitted or received signal from each antenna element in the PAA” Par. 0002 and “he individual radiated signals are combined to form the constructive and destructive interference patterns produced by the PAA that result in one or more antenna beams. The PAA may then be used to point the beam, or beams, rapidly in azimuth and elevation.” Par. 0003.
In this particular case, configuring the antenna radiation pattern is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Adams et al. to obtain the desired beam.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the radiation pattern to be proportional to
1
+
c
o
s
i
n
e
2
θ
based on the teachings of Adams et al. as a result effect in order to obtain the desired beam.
Regarding Claims 18 & 19, the method of omnidirectionally radiating electromagnetic power disclosed therein are deemed as being obvious in the assembly and operation of the prior art applied, since the prior art of record herein Adams et al. and Choi is construed as teaching or suggesting all of the elements as recited in the methods. The claims are thus subsequently rejected.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams et al. US Patent Application Publication 2023/0104894 and Choi US Patent Application Publication 2021/0313687 as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Ashrafi US Patent Application Publication 2019/0173582.
Regarding Claim 20, Adams et al. as modified teaches the method of claim 19 as shown in the rejection above.
Adams et al. does not explicitly teach further comprising: encoding, by spread spectrum encoding, a stream of data across the different frequencies of the multiple current densities.
However, Ashrafi teaches “Techniques such as channel diversity, equalization, error correction coding, spread spectrum, interleaving and space-time encoding are applicable to MLO” Par. 0250; “Embodiments of MLO systems amplitude modulate a symbol envelope to create sub-envelopes, rather than sub-carriers. For data encoding, each sub-envelope is independently modulated according to N-QAM, resulting in each sub-envelope independently carrying information” Par. 0251.
In this particular case, encoding a stream of data across the different frequencies of the multiple current densities by spread spectrum encoding is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Ashrafi to increase the spectral efficiency (Par. 0248-0251).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to encode a stream of data across the different frequencies of the multiple current densities by spread spectrum encoding based on the teachings of Ashrafi as a result effect in order to increase the spectral efficiency of the antenna array.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams et al. US Patent Application Publication 2023/0104894 and Choi US Patent Application Publication 2021/0313687 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Acikalin et al. US Patent Application Publication 2023/0420396.
Regarding Claim 21, Adams et al. as modified teaches the antenna of claim 1 as shown in the rejection above.
Adams et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the antenna is configured to: simultaneously radiate the non-zero antenna power pattern for all frequencies; and simultaneously have a low input resistance and a low input impedance across all frequencies.
However, Choi teaches (“The plurality of different carrier frequencies may include carrier frequencies used for 2.4 GHz and 5.2 GHz WiFi services, and/or carrier frequencies in the L band or the S band” Par. 0018, 0024, 0051).
Additionally, Acikalin et al. teaches improving antenna performance by adjusting the resistance and impedance of an antenna (Par. 0369-0372).
In this particular case, operating the non-zero antenna power pattern for all frequencies simultaneously, and simultaneously having a low input resistance and a low input impedance across all frequencies are common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Choi and Acikalin et al. to operate in multiple frequency bands at the same time, and to tune the antenna for optimal performance.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the antenna of Adams et al. to simultaneously radiate the non-zero antenna power pattern for all frequencies; and simultaneously have a low input resistance and a low input impedance across all frequencies based on the teachings of Choi and Acikalin et al. as a result effect in order to operate in multiple frequency bands at the same time, and to tune the antenna for optimal performance.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams et al. US Patent Application Publication 2023/0104894 and Choi US Patent Application Publication 2021/0313687 and Acikalin et al. US Patent Application Publication 2023/0420396 as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Ashrafi US Patent Application Publication 2019/0173582.
Regarding Claim 22, Adams et al. as modified teaches the antenna of claim 21 as shown in the rejection above.
Adams et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the antenna is further configured to encrypt full duplex communications using the non-zero antenna power pattern across multiple carrier frequencies.
However, Acikalin et al. teaches “full-duplex communication (simultaneous transmit and receive)” Par. 0191, also see Par. 0136, 0139, 0140.
Additionally, Ashrafi teaches “data packets are encrypted and broadcast to the users” (Par. 0500).
In this particular case, configuring the antenna to encrypt full duplex communications using all frequencies is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Acikalin et al. and Ashrafi to provide secure/encrypted simultaneous transmit and receive communications.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the antenna of Adams et al. to encrypt full duplex communications using the non-zero antenna power pattern across all frequencies based on the teachings of Acikalin et al. and Ashrafi as a result effect in order to provide secure/encrypted simultaneous transmit and receive communications.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M BOUIZZA whose telephone number is (571)272-6124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (571) 270-7893. 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.
/MICHAEL M BOUIZZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
