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 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkaya et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0258457), hereinafter referenced as Akkaya, in view of Honda (United States Patent Application Publication 2025/0358548).
Regarding claim 1, Akkaya discloses a method comprising: capturing a depth sub-frame with a first region of depth pixels configured to image a first zone of a field illuminated by near-infrared illumination light (figure 11 shows that a sub-frame can be captured for each illuminated zone as disclosed at paragraph 58). However, Akkaya fails to disclose capturing a visible-light sub-frame with a second region of image pixels that is distanced from the first region of the depth pixels, wherein the second region of the image pixels is configured to image a second zone of the field while the first region of the depth pixels images the first zone of the field.
Honda is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Honda teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of minimizing a time lag between images would have prompted a predictable variation of Akkaya by applying Honda’s known principal of capture a visible-light sub-frame with a second region of the image pixels that is distanced from the first region of the depth pixels (figures 4 and 5 show capturing depth and color sub-frames simultaneously, where the pixels capturing the respective types of images are distanced from each other in the row direction as disclosed at paragraphs 107-109; paragraph 100 teaches that the EV frames can be time of flight). When applying this known technique to Akkaya, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to capture a color image in one of the other eight zones which are not illuminated while a current zone is illuminated in order to reduce the time required to capture both color and depth images as taught by Honda, such that the combination teaches wherein the second region of the image pixels is configured to image a second zone of the field while the first region of the depth pixels images the first zone of the field while the near-infrared illumination light illuminates the first zone.
In view of the motivations such as minimizing a time lag between images one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Akkaya.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Akkaya in view of Honda discloses the method of claim 1, in addition, the combination discloses capturing a second depth sub-frame with a second region of depth pixels configured to image the second zone of the field illuminated by near-infrared illumination light in a second time period different from a first time period when the first zone of the field is illuminated by the near-infrared illumination light (figures 3 and 4 exhibits steps 316 and 318 in which a zone is illuminated and an image is captured and which is performed in a loop for each zone as disclosed at paragraph 67); and capturing a second visible-light sub-frame with a first region of image pixels that is distanced from the second region of the depth pixels, wherein the first region of the image pixels is configured to image the first zone of the field while the second region of the depth pixels images the second zone of the field while the near-infrared illumination light illuminates the second zone (as explained in the rejection of claim 1, the combination of Akkaya in view of Honda teaches capturing a color image using another portion of the sensor while a depth image is being captured).
Regarding claim 3, Akkaya in view of Honda discloses the method of claim 2, however, Akkaya fails to disclose wherein the first region of depth pixels is interspersed with the first region of image pixels, and wherein the second region of depth pixels is interspersed with the second region of image pixels.
At the time of filing, there was a recognized problem or need in the art to capture all areas of an imaging range in a sequential manner with each sub-capturing operation comprising a zone where depth data is obtained and a second zone where image data is obtained simultaneously. There were a finite number of identified and predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem which were:
Have the first region of depth pixels interspersed with the first region of image pixels, and the second region of depth pixels interspersed with the second region of image pixels; or
Have the first region of depth pixels interspersed with one of the remaining regions of image pixels, and the second region of depth pixels interspersed with another one of the remaining regions of image pixels.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success since all the solutions capturing full depth and color images. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkaya in view of Honda and further in view of Morestin et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2019/0123075), hereinafter referenced as Morestin.
Regarding claim 4, Akkaya discloses an imaging and depth system comprising: an illumination module configured to emit near-infrared illumination light (figure 2 exhibits illumination source 214 which emits NIR light as disclosed at paragraph 23); an array of image pixels configured to image visible light (figure 2A exhibits pixel array 204 as disclosed at paragraph 16; paragraph 30 teaches that color images can be captured with the pixels); depth pixels, wherein the depth pixels are configured to image the near-infrared illumination light emitted by the illumination module (figure 2A exhibits pixel array 204 as disclosed at paragraph 16; paragraph 31 teaches that light emitted by the illumination source can be captured by the pixels); and processing logic configured to: drive the illumination module to illuminate a first zone of a field with the near-infrared illumination light (figure 8 shows a pattern of illuminating a scene in zones as disclosed at paragraph 52); capture a depth sub-frame with a first region of the depth pixels configured to image the first zone of the field illuminated by the near-infrared illumination light (figure 11 shows that a sub-frame can be captured for each illuminated zone as disclosed at paragraph 58). However, Akkaya fails to disclose that the depth pixels are interspersed with the image pixels and the processing logic is configured to: capture a visible-light sub-frame with a second region of the image pixels that is distanced from the first region of the depth pixels, wherein the second region of the image pixels is configured to image a second zone of the field while the first region of the depth pixels images the first zone of the field while the near-infrared illumination light illuminates the first zone.
Honda is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Honda teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of minimizing a time lag between images would have prompted a predictable variation of Akkaya by applying Honda’s known principal of capture a visible-light sub-frame with a second region of the image pixels that is distanced from the first region of the depth pixels (figures 4 and 5 show capturing depth and color sub-frames simultaneously, where the pixels capturing the respective types of images are distanced from each other in the row direction as disclosed at paragraphs 107-109; paragraph 100 teaches that the EV frames can be time of flight). When applying this known technique to Akkaya, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to capture a color image in one of the other eight zones which are not illuminated while a current zone is illuminated in order to reduce the time required to capture both color and depth images as taught by Honda, such that the combination teaches wherein the second region of the image pixels is configured to image a second zone of the field while the first region of the depth pixels images the first zone of the field while the near-infrared illumination light illuminates the first zone.
In view of the motivations such as minimizing a time lag between images one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Akkaya.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Akkaya in view of Honda fails to disclose that the depth pixels are interspersed with the image pixels.
Akkaya teaches an image sensor in which the same pixels are used for depth imaging and color imaging. Morestin teaches an array in which depth pixels are interspersed with image pixels (figure 1 exhibits an array with depth pixels Z interspersed with color pixels as disclosed at paragraph 21). Because both Akkaya and Morestin teach arrays for capturing depth and color images, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the array in which depth pixels are interspersed with the image pixels taught by Morestin for the pixel array taught by Akkaya to achieve the predictable result of capturing depth and color images.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, Akkaya in view of Honda and further in view of Morestin discloses the imaging and depth system of claim 4, in addition, Akkaya discloses wherein the processing logic is further configured to: drive the illumination module to illuminate a second zone of a field with the near-infrared illumination light; capture a second depth sub-frame with a second region of the depth pixels configured to image the second zone of the field illuminated by the near-infrared illumination light in a second time period different from a first time period when the first zone of the field is illuminated by the near-infrared illumination light (figures 3 and 4 exhibits steps 316 and 318 in which a zone is illuminated and an image is captured and which is performed in a loop for each zone as disclosed at paragraph 67); and the combination teaches capture a second visible-light sub-frame with a first region of image pixels that is distanced from the second region of the depth pixels, wherein the first region of the image pixels is configured to image the first zone of the field while the second region of the depth pixels images the second zone of the field while the near-infrared illumination light illuminates the second zone (as explained in the rejection of claim 1, the combination of Akkaya in view of Honda teaches capturing a color image using another portion of the sensor while a depth image is being captured).
Regarding claim 6, Akkaya in view of Honda and further in view of Morestin discloses the imaging and depth system of claim 5, however, Akkaya fails to disclose wherein the first region of depth pixels is interspersed with the first region of image pixels, and wherein the second region of depth pixels is interspersed with the second region of image pixels.
At the time of filing, there was a recognized problem or need in the art to capture all areas of an imaging range in a sequential manner with each sub-capturing operation comprising a zone where depth data is obtained and a second zone where image data is obtained simultaneously. There were a finite number of identified and predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem which were:
Have the first region of depth pixels interspersed with the first region of image pixels, and the second region of depth pixels interspersed with the second region of image pixels; or
Have the first region of depth pixels interspersed with one of the remaining regions of image pixels, and the second region of depth pixels interspersed with another one of the remaining regions of image pixels.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success since all the solutions capturing full depth and color images. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, Akkaya in view of Honda and further in view of Morestin discloses the imaging and depth system of claim 5, in addition, Akkaya discloses wherein the depth sub-frame and the visible-light sub-frame are included in a first sub-frame, and wherein the second depth sub-frame and the second visible-light sub-frame are included in a second sub-frame (figure 11 shows that the depth images are captured on a sub-frame basis as disclosed at paragraph 58).
Regarding claim 8, Akkaya in view of Honda and further in view of Morestin discloses the imaging and depth system of claim 7, in addition, Akkaya discloses wherein the first sub-frame and the second sub-frame are processed into a frame, and wherein the first sub-frame and the second sub-frame are captured within 20 ms of another (figures 11 and 13 show the capturing of sub-frames for each zone, paragraph 69 teaches that each zone takes 5ms for a total of 50ms for 10 zones, therefore each sub-frame is captured less than 20ms apart).
Regarding claim 9, Akkaya in view of Honda and further in view of Morestin discloses the imaging and depth system of claim 4, in addition, Akkaya discloses wherein the illumination module only illuminates the first zone of the field, and not other zones of the field, while the depth sub-frame and the visible-light sub-frame is being captured (figure 8 shows that only the sub-frame being captured is illuminated while the other frames are not illuminated).
Claims 10, 14, 15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0325541), hereinafter referenced as Kim, in view of Yin et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0018642), hereinafter referenced as Yin, and further in view of Nakanishi (United States Patent Application Publication 2024/0107198).
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses combined image and depth sensor comprising: a first layer including macropixels of depth pixels interspersed with image pixels, wherein the image pixels are configured to image visible light and the depth pixels are configured to image near-infrared illumination light (figure 3A exhibits a pixel array including macropixels which have a depth pixel 304 interspersed with image pixels 301, 302 and 303 as disclosed at paragraph 85; paragraph 80 discloses a stacked structure where the pixels are on a first layer); a second layer including depth-processing circuitry for processing depth-signals generated by the depth pixels (figure 2B exhibits depth processing circuitry 240 as disclosed at paragraph 77, paragraph 80 discloses a stacked structure where the processing circuits are on a second layer); and image-processing circuitry to process image signals received from the image pixels of the macropixels (figure 2B exhibits processing circuit 204 as disclosed at paragraph 61). However, Yin fails to disclose wherein the depth-processing circuitry occupies an area of the second layer that is larger than a depth-pixel area of the depth pixel in a given macropixel and smaller than a macro-area of the given macropixel in the first layer; a third layer that includes the image-processing circuitry, and wherein the second layer is disposed between the first layer and the third layer, and wherein the image signals propagate from the first layer, through the second layer, to reach the third layer.
Yin is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Yin teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of minimizing the size of the imaging device would have prompted a predictable variation of Kim by applying Yin’s known principal of providing a third layer that includes the image-processing circuitry (figure 2B exhibits a third layer which includes an image signal processor as disclosed at paragraph 31), and wherein the second layer is disposed between the first layer and the third layer, and wherein the image signals propagate from the first layer, through the second layer, to reach the third layer (figure 2B shows that a second layer with depth processing circuits is located between the pixel array layer and the image processing layer).
In view of the motivations such as minimizing the size of the imaging device one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Kim.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Kim in view of Yin fails to disclose wherein the depth-processing circuitry occupies an area of the second layer that is larger than a depth-pixel area of the depth pixel in a given macropixel and smaller than a macro-area of the given macropixel in the first layer.
Nakanishi is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Nakanishi teaches an image sensor wherein the motivation of minimizing the footprint of an image sensor would have prompted a predictable variation of Kim by applying Nakanishi’s known principal of having an area of processing circuitry on a lower layer be less than the area of a group of pixels processed by the processing circuitry (paragraph 56 teaches that the area of a pixel group and its processing circuitry may be “substantially the same with a margin between the adjacent blocks included”, if the block sizes are substantially the same, then it would be obvious that the processing block could be slightly smaller than the pixel block; also, by having the block sizes substantially the same size, the processing circuit is larger than any single pixel). When applying this known technique to Kim in which a macro pixel include a depth pixel and surrounding imaging pixels, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to control the size of the processing block to be slightly smaller than the macro pixel block such that the combination teaches wherein the depth-processing circuitry occupies an area of the second layer that is larger than a depth-pixel area of the depth pixel in a given macropixel and smaller than a macro-area of the given macropixel in the first layer, as currently claimed.
In view of the motivations such as minimizing the footprint of an image sensor one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Kim.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, Kim in view of Yin in view of Nakanishi discloses the combined image and depth sensor of claim 10, in addition, Kim discloses interpolation processing logic configured to interpolate the depth-signals and the image signals to generate dense data, wherein points in the dense data includes (1) red, green, and blue intensities; and (2) range information (paragraphs 139-141 teach interpolating to fill in missing pixel data for both imaging data and depth data as shown in the method of figure 9).
Regarding claim 15, Kim in view of Yin in view of Nakanishi discloses the combined image and depth sensor of claim 14, in addition, Kim disclose wherein the interpolation processing logic is included in the combined image and depth sensor (figure 2 shows that image processor 214 which performs the interpolation is included in the sensor).
Regarding claim 17, Kim in view of Yin in view of Nakanishi discloses the combined image and depth sensor of claim 14, in addition, Kim discloses wherein the image signals are received from the image pixels of the micropixel (paragraphs 139-141 teach interpolating to fill in missing pixel data for both imaging data and depth data as shown in the method of figure 9, it is apparent that the image signals are received from the macropixels which include both imaging and depth pixels).
Regarding claim 20, Kim in view of Yin in view of Nakanishi discloses the combined image and depth sensor of claim 10, in addition, Kim discloses wherein the image pixels are complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) pixels, and wherein the depth pixels are Single Photon Avalanche Diode (SPAD) pixels (paragraph 48 teaches CMOS imaging pixels and SPAD depth pixels).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Yin in view of Nakanishi and further in view of Tsukuda (United States Patent Application Publication 2024/0012150).
Regarding claim 11, Kim in view of Yin in view of Nakanishi discloses the combined image and depth sensor of claim 10, however, Kim fails to disclose wherein the depth-processing circuity includes at least one of a quenching circuits, recharge circuit, or decoupling capacitors to support reading out the depth pixels in the macropixel.
Tsukuda is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Tsukuda teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of suppressing avalanche multiplication of the SPAD element would have prompted a predictable variation of Kim by applying Tsukuda’s known principal of including a quench circuit as part of the depth processing circuitry (figures 9 and 10 show that quench circuit 541 is part of readout circuit 52 as disclosed at paragraph 84).
In view of the motivations such as suppressing avalanche multiplication of the SPAD element one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Kim.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, Kim in view of Yin in view of Nakanishi discloses the combined image and depth sensor of claim 10, however, Kim fails to disclose wherein histogram memory cells are disposed in the third layer, wherein the histogram memory cells are configured to store time-of-flight (TOF) data captured by the depth pixels.
Tsukuda is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Tsukuda teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of discriminating between disturbance light and reflected light thereby improving time of flight accuracy of the SPAD element would have prompted a predictable variation of Kim by applying Tsukuda’s known principal of including histogram memory cells are disposed in the third layer, wherein the histogram memory cells are configured to store time-of-flight (TOF) data captured by the depth pixels (figure 12 shows that histogram generator 562 is part of signal processing circuit 56 which is disposed in the third substrate as shown in figure 9 and disclosed at paragraphs 112 and 136).
In view of the motivations such as discriminating between disturbance light and reflected light thereby improving time of flight accuracy one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Kim.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Yin in view of Nakanishi and further in view of Wang et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2017/0026590), hereinafter referenced as Wang.
Regarding claim 13, Kim in view of Yin in view of Nakanishi discloses the combined image and depth sensor of claim 10, however, Kim fails to disclose wherein the combined image and depth sensor is configured to execute a global shutter for the depth pixels and the image pixels.
Wang is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Wang teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of eliminating motion blur caused by a rolling shutter would have prompted a predictable variation of Kim by applying Wang’s known principal of executing a global shutter for the depth pixels and the image pixels (figure 8B shows a global shutter operation for depth and imaging pixels as disclosed at paragraph 57).
In view of the motivations such as eliminating motion blur caused by a rolling shutter one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Kim.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Yin in view of Nakanishi and further in view of Perruchoud et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2025/0044414), hereinafter referenced as Perruchoud.
Regarding claim 16, Kim in view of Yin in view of Nakanishi discloses the combined image and depth sensor of claim 14, however, Kim fails to disclose wherein the interpolation processing logic is separately packaged from the combined image and depth sensor.
Kim in view of Yin in view of Nakanishi teaches interpolation logic as part of the image sensor (figure 2 shows that image processor 214 which performs the interpolation is included in the sensor). Perruchoud teaches that an image processor can be a separate SOC (figure 1 exhibits processing unit 30 as disclosed at paragraph 55). Because both Kim and Perruchoud teach locations for a processing unit, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the processing logic that is separately packaged as taught by Perruchoud for the processing logic that is part of the image sensor as taught by Kim, to achieve the predictable result of providing a processor which can interpolate data.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 18, Kim in view of Yin in view of Nakanishi discloses the combined image and depth sensor of claim 14, wherein generating the dense data includes a machine learning algorithm fusing the depth-signals and the image signals to generate the dense data.
Perruchoud is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Perruchoud teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of increasing the resolution of the depth map would have prompted a predictable variation of Kim by applying Perruchoud’s known principal of generating the dense data includes a machine learning algorithm fusing the depth-signals and the image signals to generate the dense data (paragraph 98 teaches using machine learning to fuse depth data and image data).
In view of the motivations such as increasing the resolution of the depth map one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Kim.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Yin in view of Nakanishi in view of Perruchoud in view of Xu et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2024/0319375), hereinafter referenced as Xu, and further in view of Hinderling (United States Patent Application Publication 2023/0194255).
Regarding claim 19, Kim in view of Yin in view of Nakanishi and further in view of Perruchoud discloses the combined image and depth sensor of claim 18, however, Kim fails to disclose wherein the points in the dense data include confidence levels associated with the range information, and wherein each point in the dense data further includes an angular position of the point in the dense data.
Xu is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Xu teaches a depth map for a scene wherein the motivation of indicating a precision of depth measurements would have prompted a predictable variation of Kim by applying Xu’s known principal of wherein the points in the dense data include confidence levels associated with the range information (figure 5D exhibits a confidence map associated with the depth map as disclosed at paragraph 88).
In view of the motivations such as indicating a precision of depth measurements one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Kim.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Kim in view of Yin in view of Nakanishi in view of Perruchoud in view of Xu fails to disclose wherein each point in the dense data further includes an angular position of the point in the dense data.
Hinderling is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Hinderling teaches a depth map for a scene wherein the motivation of determining 3D coordinates of objects in a scene would have prompted a predictable variation of Kim by applying Hinderling’s known principal of wherein each point in the dense data further includes an angular position of the point in the dense data (paragraph 2 teaches including angular information with distance information to determine a 3d coordinate of objects in a scene).
In view of the motivations such as determining 3D coordinates of objects in a scene one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Kim.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Amaya Benitez (United States Patent Application Publication 2025/0164642) teaches an imaging device.
Sakaguchi et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2024/0125931) teaches an imaging device.
Hicks (United States Patent 10,511,828) discloses an imaging device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON A FLOHRE whose telephone number is (571)270-7238. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-3:00.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at 571-272-7564. 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.
JASON A. FLOHRE
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/JASON A FLOHRE/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Prosecution Insights