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 .
The instant application having Application No. 18/915,356 filed on 10/15/2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
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.
Priority
As required by e M.P.E.P. 210, 200, 214, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on application CN202311351665.2 (People’s Republic of China) and CN202322798507.3 (People’s Republic of China).
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “wherein the connection structure is dispensing”. Neither the claims nor the specification provide clarity on what the connection structure is dispensing. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as “the connection structure is in contact with an adhesive”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mattinson (WO 2023061865 A1)(see attached copy).
Regarding claim 18, Mattinson discloses an optical camera working at a far-infrared waveband, in at least Figure 1, wherein the optical camera (12 “lens system”, Figure 1) comprises a lens barrel (22 “lens barrel”, Figure 1) and the optical system claimed as claim 1 (12D “refractive lens”, 12E “metalens”, Figure 1); an inner wall of the lens barrel (22 “lens barrel”) is set with a staircase structure (Figure 1 shows that 22 “lens barrel” has a staircase structure); the metalens (12E “metalens”) and refractive lens (12D “refractive lens”) are set on the staircase structure (Figure 1 shows that 12E “metalens” and 12D “refractive lens” are set within 22 “lens barrel” which has a staircase structure); the optical camera (12 “lens system”) further comprises a connection structure (24 “spacers”, Figure 1), and the connection structure (24 “spacers”) is used to fix the metalens (12E “metalens”) and refractive lens (12D “refractive lens”) on the staircase structure (paragraph 0022 states “The refractive lenses 12A, 12B, 12C, 12D and the metalens 12E can be contained, for example, in a lens barrel 22, and can be supported, respectively, by spacers 24 composed, for example, of plastic or silicon”).
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20220206186 A1)(Figure 1A), in view of Chen (US 20220206186 A1)(Figure 2A).
Regarding claim 1, Chen (Figure 1A) discloses an optical system working at a far-infrared waveband, in at least Figure 1(a), comprising two optical elements, the two optical elements being, along the optical axis in order from an object side to an image side: a metalens (paragraph 0007 states "Some embodiments provide for apochromat hybrid lenses comprising a metasurface and a single refractive lens for the near-infrared. This can be applied to even the mid- and far- infrared regions", see examiners markup of Figure 1(a)) and a refractive lens (paragraph 0022 states "FIG. 1(a) shows a typical layout of a hybrid system (e.g., optical device) according to some embodiments, including a metasurface and a refractive lens element", see examiners markup of Figure 1(a));
each of two optical elements comprising an object-side surface (see examiners markup of Figure 1(a)) facing towards the object side and an image-side surface (see examiners markup of Figure 1(a)) facing towards the image side;
wherein the metalens comprises a substrate (see examiners markup of Figure 1(a)) and a plurality of nanostructures ("metasurface", paragraph 0007 states "metasurfaces composed of subwavelength nanostructures to reduce or substantially eliminate chromatic aberrations", Figure 1(a)), and the plurality of nanostructures ("metasurface") are set on the image-side surface (see examiners markup of Figure 1(a)) of the metalens (see examiners markup of Figure 1(a));
the object-side surface (see examiners markup of Figure 1(a)) of the refractive lens (see examiners markup of Figure 1(a)) is a concave surface (see examiners markup of Figure 1(a) which shows that the object-side surface of the refractive lens is concave), and the image-side surface (see examiners markup of Figure 1(a)) of the refractive lens (see examiners markup of Figure 1(a)) is a convex surface (see examiners markup of Figure 1(a) which shows that the image-side surface of the refractive lens is a convex surface); and the refractive lens (see examiners markup of Figure 1(a)) has positive refractive power (the refractive lens in Figure 1(a) is a positive meniscus lens because the radius of curvature of the concave surface is smaller than the radius of curvature of the convex surface).
Below is an examiner’s markup of Figure 1(a) of Chen which points out a metalens, a refractive lens, an object-side surface, an image-side surface, and a substrate.
PNG
media_image1.png
699
1337
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Chen (Figure 1(a)) does not disclose when a light passes through the image-side surface of the metalens, the incident angle of the light is less than or equal to 45°.
Chen (Figure 2(a)) teaches when a light passes through the image-side surface of the metalens (see examiner’s first markup of Figure 2(a)), the incident angle of the light is less than or equal to 45° (examiner’s first markup of Figure 2(a) shows that the incident angle of the light which reaches the image plane is 15°. Comparing that angle to the incident angle of the light which passes through the image-side surface of the metalens shows that the incident angle of the light which passes through the image-side surface of the metalens is less than 15° which is therefore less than 45°).
Below is an examiner’s first markup of Figure 2(a) pointing out a metalens and an image-side surface.
PNG
media_image2.png
842
1147
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical system of Chen (Figure 1(a)) modified by when a light passes through the image-side surface of the metalens, the incident angle of the light is less than or equal to 45°, as taught by Chen (Figure 2(a)), in order to limit the field of view (paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Chen (Figure 1(a)) and Chen (Figure 2(a)) disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Chen (Figure 1(a)) further discloses wherein the optical system satisfies the following condition:
0.90 ≤ L/BFL ≤ 2.00 (by measurement of Figure 1(a), L = 9.7 units and BFL = 6.1 units, so therefore L/BFL = 1.59 which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range,
wherein L is a paraxial distance between the object-side surface of the metalens and the image-side surface of the refractive lens, BFL is a distance between the image-side surface of the refractive lens and image plane; and the unit of L and BFL are the same.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Chen (Figure 1(a)) and Chen (Figure 2(a)) disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Chen (Figure 1(a)) further discloses wherein the optical system satisfies the following condition:
1.23 ≤ L/BFL ≤ 1.74 (by measurement of Figure 1(a), L = 9.7 units and BFL = 6.1 units, so therefore L/BFL = 1.59 which falls within the claimed range thereby anticipating the claimed range).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Chen (Figure 1(a)) and Chen (Figure 2(a)) disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Chen (Figure 1(a)) does not disclose wherein the optical system also comprises an aperture slot; the aperture slot is next to the metalens and is set on the surface of the metalens.
Chen (Figure 2(a)) teaches wherein the optical system also comprises an aperture slot (see examiner’s second markup of Figure 2(a)); the aperture slot (see examiner’s second markup of Figure 2(a)) is next to the metalens (see examiner’s second markup of Figure 2(a)) and is set on the surface of the metalens (see examiner’s second markup of Figure 2(a)).
Below is an examiner’s second markup of Figure 2(a) pointing out aperture slots.
PNG
media_image3.png
756
1030
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical system of Chen (Figure 1(a)) modified by wherein the optical system also comprises an aperture slot; the aperture slot is next to the metalens and is set on the surface of the metalens, as taught by Chen (Figure 2(a)), in order to reduce aberrations (paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Chen (Figure 1(a)) and Chen (Figure 2(a)) disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Chen (Figure 1(a)) does not disclose wherein the optical system also comprises an aperture slot, and an air gap is set between the aperture slot and the metalens.
Chen (Figure 2(a)) teaches wherein the optical system also comprises an aperture slot (see examiner’s second markup of Figure 2(a)), and an air gap is set between the aperture slot (see examiner’s second markup of Figure 2(a)) and the metalens (see examiner’s second markup of Figure 2(a) which shows an air gap between the aperture slot and the metalens).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical system of Chen (Figure 1(a)) modified by wherein the optical system also comprises an aperture slot, and an air gap is set between the aperture slot and the metalens, as taught by Chen (Figure 2(a)), in order to reduce aberrations (paragraph 0006).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20220206186 A1)(Figure 1A), in view of Chen (US 20220206186 A1)(Figure 2A), and further in view of Zhou (CN 113687515 A)(see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Chen (Figure 1(a)) and Chen (Figure 2(a)) disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Chen (Figure 1(a)) does not disclose wherein the plurality nanostructures are positive nanostructures.
Zhou teaches wherein the plurality nanostructures are positive nanostructures (page 7, paragraph 2 of translation states “nano-column can adopt positive and negative structure alternately arranged”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical system of Chen (Figure 1(a)) modified by wherein the plurality nanostructures are positive nanostructures, as taught by Zhou, in order to simplify manufacturing and reduce cost (page 7, paragraph 2 of translation).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Chen (Figure 1(a)) and Chen (Figure 2(a)) disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Chen (Figure 1(a)) does not disclose wherein the plurality nanostructures are negative nanostructures.
Zhou teaches wherein the plurality nanostructures are negative nanostructures (page 7, paragraph 2 of translation states “nano-column can adopt positive and negative structure alternately arranged”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical system of Chen (Figure 1(a)) modified by wherein the plurality nanostructures are negative nanostructures, as taught by Zhou, in order to allow for a small volume and low thickness (page 7, paragraph 2 of translation).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20220206186 A1)(Figure 1A), in view of Chen (US 20220206186 A1)(Figure 2A), and further in view of Zhu (CN 112764199 A)(see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Chen (Figure 1(a)) and Chen (Figure 2(a)) disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Chen (Figure 1(a)) does not disclose wherein the optical system comprises an optical window; the optical window is set between the refractive lens and the image plane.
Zhu teaches wherein the optical system comprises an optical window (14 "detector protection window", Figure 1); the optical window (14 "detector protection window") is set between the refractive lens (13 “third lens”) and the image plane (“imaging surface”, last paragraph of page 4 – first paragraph of page 5 of translation states "As shown in FIG. 1, incident light enters through the object side surface of the first lens 11, passes through the diaphragm and then passes through the second lens 12, the third lens 13 and the detector protection window 14 finally converging on the imaging surface", Figure 1).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical system of Chen (Figure 1(a)) modified by wherein the optical system comprises an optical window; the optical window is set between the refractive lens and the image plane, as taught by Zhu, in order to protect the imaging surface.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20220206186 A1)(Figure 1A), in view of Chen (US 20220206186 A1)(Figure 2A), and further in view of Park (KR 20210042005 A)(see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Chen (Figure 1(a)) and Chen (Figure 2(a)) disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Chen (Figure 1(a)) does not disclose wherein the total track length of the optical system is less than or equal to 3.8 mm.
Park teaches wherein the total track length of the optical system is less than or equal to 3.8 mm (page 11, paragraph 8 of translation states “the total length of the imaging device 2200 is 3.6 mm, and it can be seen that a very thin optical system in which the overall aberration is well controlled is implemented”, page 9, paragraph 12 of translation states “The third lens element P3 includes a first meta surface 155, and the fifth lens element P5 includes a second meta surface 156 and a third meta surface 157”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical system of Chen (Figure 1(a)) modified by wherein the total track length of the optical system is less than or equal to 3.8 mm, as taught by Park, in order to reduce aberration (page 11, paragraph 8 of translation).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20220206186 A1)(Figure 1A), in view of Chen (US 20220206186 A1)(Figure 2A), and further in view of Thibault (US 20230305295 A1).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Chen (Figure 1(a)) and Chen (Figure 2(a)) disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Chen (Figure 1(a)) does not disclose wherein the distortion of the optical system is less than 50%.
Thibault teaches wherein the distortion of the optical system is less than 50% (paragraph 0032 states “FIGS. 3A and 3B show the f*tan(θ) distortion graphs for the example systems of FIGS. 2A and 2B. … the graph 350 at FIG. 3B is for the designed optical system with metalens 250”, Figure 3B shows that the distortion is less than 0.5%).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical system of Chen (Figure 1(a)) modified by wherein the distortion of the optical system is less than 50%, as taught by Thibault, in order to improve image quality.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20220206186 A1)(Figure 1A), in view of Chen (US 20220206186 A1)(Figure 2A), and further in view of Hao (WO 2023050867 A1)(see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Chen (Figure 1(a)) and Chen (Figure 2(a)) disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Chen (Figure 1(a)) does not disclose wherein the F number of the optical system is less than or equal to 1.1.
Hao teaches wherein the F number of the optical system is less than or equal to 1.1 (page 17, paragraph 9 of translation states “The refraction-metalens optical system phase correction plate is composed of a hyperlens + a germanium refraction lens, the working band is 8-12μm, the field of view is 40°, the F number is 1.1”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical system of Chen (Figure 1(a)) modified by wherein the F number of the optical system is less than or equal to 1.1, as taught by Hao, in order to allow for a larger aperture.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattinson (WO 2023061865 A1)(see attached copy), in view of Kang (CN 105717604 A)(see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 19, Mattinson discloses all the limitations of claim 18, however Mattinson does not disclose wherein the connection structure is a pressure ring.
Kang teaches wherein the connection structure (20 “pressure ring”, Figures 5-7) is a pressure ring (page 4, paragraph 4 of translation states “pressure ring 20 is inserted into and joined to the lens barrel 10, wherein the pressure ring 20 is set to prevent the lens 11 outwardly separated from the lens barrel 10”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical camera of Mattinson modified by wherein the connection structure is a pressure ring, as taught by Kang, in order to prevent the lens from separating from the lens barrel (page 4, paragraph 4 of translation).
Regarding claim 20, Mattinson discloses all the limitations of claim 18, however Mattinson does not disclose wherein the connection structure is dispensing.
Kang teaches wherein the connection structure is dispensing (page 4, paragraph 4 of translation states “the adhesive can be applied between the pressing ring 20 and the lens barrel 10, and can be obtained by the curing of the adhesive the press-fit ring 20 is tightly adhered and fixed to the lens barrel 10”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical camera of Mattinson modified by wherein the connection structure is dispensing, as taught by Kang, in order to ensure that the pressure ring is tightly adhered to the lens barrel (page 4, paragraph 4 of translation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 and 14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Chen (Figure 1(a)) and Chen (Figure 2(a)) disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Chen (Figure 1(a)) does not disclose wherein the optical system satisfies the following condition:
2*arcsin(
2
2
n1) > Fov,
wherein Fov is a field of view of the optical system, and the unit of the Fov is expressed in degree; n is the refractive index.
Mattinson (WO 2023061865 A1), Chen (US 20220206186 A1), Zhou (CN 113687515 A), Zhu (CN 112764199 A), Park (KR 20210042005 A), Thibault (US 20230305295 A1), Hao (WO 2023050867 A1), and Kang (CN 105717604 A), either singularly or in combination, do not disclose or suggest wherein the optical system satisfies the following condition: 2*arcsin(
2
2
n1) > Fov, wherein Fov is a field of view of the optical system, and the unit of the Fov is expressed in degree; n is the refractive index, among other claim limitations.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Chen (Figure 1(a)) and Chen (Figure 2(a)) disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Chen (Figure 1(a)) does not disclose wherein the optical system satisfies the following condition:
15.25 ≤
k
*
σ
+
T
T
L
f
2
≤ 20.00,
wherein k is a correction coefficient, and the unit of k is expressed in mm*℃; σ is a refraction temperature coefficient, and the unit of σ is expressed in 1/℃; TTL is a total track length of the optical system, and the unit of TTL is expressed in mm; f2 is a focal length of the refractive lens, and the unit of f2 is expressed in mm.
Mattinson (WO 2023061865 A1), Chen (US 20220206186 A1), Zhou (CN 113687515 A), Zhu (CN 112764199 A), Park (KR 20210042005 A), Thibault (US 20230305295 A1), Hao (WO 2023050867 A1), and Kang (CN 105717604 A), either singularly or in combination, do not disclose or suggest wherein the optical system satisfies the following condition: 15.25 ≤
k
*
σ
+
T
T
L
f
2
≤ 20.00, wherein k is a correction coefficient, and the unit of k is expressed in mm*℃; σ is a refraction temperature coefficient, and the unit of σ is expressed in 1/℃; TTL is a total track length of the optical system, and the unit of TTL is expressed in mm; f2 is a focal length of the refractive lens, and the unit of f2 is expressed in mm, among other claim limitations.
Claim 4 depends on claim 3 so it is allowable for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Chen (Figure 1(a)) and Chen (Figure 2(a)) disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Chen (Figure 1(a)) does not disclose wherein the optical system satisfies the following condition:
0.25 ≤
c
1
-
c
2
*
H
ϕ
m
≤ 1.20,
wherein c1 is a curvature radius of the object-side surface of the refractive lens and the unit of the curvature radius is expressed of 1/mm; c2 is a curvature radius of the image-side surface of the refractive lens and the unit of the curvature radius is expressed of 1/mm; H is a thickness of the refractive lens and the unit of the thickness of the refractive lens is expressed in mm; ϕm is a focal power of the metalens and the unit of the focal power is expressed in 1/mm.
Mattinson (WO 2023061865 A1), Chen (US 20220206186 A1), Zhou (CN 113687515 A), Zhu (CN 112764199 A), Park (KR 20210042005 A), Thibault (US 20230305295 A1), Hao (WO 2023050867 A1), and Kang (CN 105717604 A), either singularly or in combination, do not disclose or suggest wherein the optical system satisfies the following condition: 0.25 ≤
c
1
-
c
2
*
H
ϕ
m
≤ 1.20, wherein c1 is a curvature radius of the object-side surface of the refractive lens and the unit of the curvature radius is expressed of 1/mm; c2 is a curvature radius of the image-side surface of the refractive lens and the unit of the curvature radius is expressed of 1/mm; H is a thickness of the refractive lens and the unit of the thickness of the refractive lens is expressed in mm; ϕm is a focal power of the metalens and the unit of the focal power is expressed in 1/mm, among other claim limitations.
Claim 6 depends on claim 5 so it is allowable for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Chen (Figure 1(a)) and Chen (Figure 2(a)) disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Chen (Figure 1(a)) does not disclose wherein the field of view of the optical system satisfies: 117° ≤ Fov ≤ 123°, wherein Fov is a field of view of the optical system.
Mattinson (WO 2023061865 A1), Chen (US 20220206186 A1), Zhou (CN 113687515 A), Zhu (CN 112764199 A), Park (KR 20210042005 A), Thibault (US 20230305295 A1), Hao (WO 2023050867 A1), and Kang (CN 105717604 A), either singularly or in combination, do not disclose or suggest wherein the field of view of the optical system satisfies: 117° ≤ Fov ≤ 123°, wherein Fov is a field of view of the optical system, among other claim limitations.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAINA M SWANSON whose telephone number is (703)756-5809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 571-270-1284. 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.
/ALAINA MARIE SWANSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights