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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Reference numerals 1010 and 1020, appearing in FIGS. 2 and 3 respectively, are not mentioned anywhere in the description. The impedances Z_f, Z_m and Z_c shown in the equivalent circuit of FIG. 7 are not mentioned anywhere in the description. FIGS. 2 and 3 are described at Paras. 71 and 72 as identifying the broadside region and the end-fire region "using a hatching." No such hatching is discernible in either figure.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 13, 19 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites "between the radiator module and a free space." The article should be deleted. Claim 13 recites electric fields having "the same magnitude and different phases opposite to each other." "Different phases" and "opposite to each other" are redundant. Claims 19 and 20 recite controlling each module "to perform broadside radiation to perform broadside directional beamforming," and the parallel end-fire recitation. The doubled infinitive is grammatically improper.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim 18 recites "a control circuit configured to apply a signal to the plurality of radiator modules." The term "circuit," coupled with a description of the circuit's operation, conveys sufficient structure and is not a generic placeholder. See MPEP § 2181(I)(A). This limitation is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Claims 19 and 20 are treated the same way. No other limitation in claims 1-20 invokes 112(f).
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1 and 18 recite "a cavity having a front open surface and an upper slot defined in an upper surface thereof." The antecedent of "thereof" is ambiguous, since it may refer to the cavity or to the immediately preceding front open surface. For examination purposes, "thereof" is interpreted as referring to the cavity.
Claims 1 and 18 further recite "a widthwise feed line disposed under the upper slot." Because the upper slot is an aperture rather than a solid part, it cannot be determined whether the feed line is inside the cavity, embedded within the upper wall, or below the cavity entirely. FIG. 1 places element 300 inside the cavity while FIG. 6 places the feeding network on the back side of the stack. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as requiring the feed line to lie below the plane of the upper surface and in vertical alignment with the slot.
Claim 3 recites that the widthwise feed line "is electrically connected to the upper slot." A slot is an absence of conductor and cannot form an electrical connection. Para. 68 compounds the ambiguity by stating both that the feed line is "electrically connected to the upper slot 110" and that it "may be electrically coupled with the upper slot 110." For examination purposes the limitation is interpreted as requiring electromagnetic coupling.
Claim 5 recites performing "the broadside radiation using the upper space" and "the end-fire radiation using both the upper space and the lower space." A space is a void and cannot itself perform radiation. It cannot be determined what structural relationship the limitation requires. Furthermore, there is nothing such as a conductor and/or ground plane limiting and/or preventing electromagnetic waves in a particular space.
Claims 7 and 17 recite elements "disposed in front of" the upper surface of the cavity, in front of a lower surface of the cavity, and in front of the widthwise upper slot. Because those surfaces are horizontal and the front of the cavity is a separate face, "in front of" may mean forward of in the front-rear direction or overlying in the vertical direction. For examination purposes, "in front of" is interpreted as forward of the recited surface in the front-rear direction, consistent with FIG. 7.
Claims 8 and 15 recite that impedance matching and a frequency band are "performed" or "determined" "based on" recited dimensions. The claims state no values, ranges, or relationships those dimensions must satisfy, and every physical dimension of a radiator affects its impedance and band to some degree. The metes and bounds of the limitations cannot be determined.
Claim 9 recites that "a series capacitance component is induced." The claim recites no circuit or network with respect to which the capacitance is in series.
Claim 13 recites that the electric fields from the widthwise upper and lower slots "offset each other," with no directional limitation. Complete cancellation in all directions would preclude any radiation, contrary to the stated purpose of the module. Para. 92 describes offsetting only in the rearward direction.
Claim 14 recites that "the radiator module operates as a cavity backed slot antenna." It cannot be determined whether this imposes a structural requirement beyond those already recited or merely characterizes the mode of operation of the structure of claims 1 and 10.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 10, 11, 19 and 20 are rejected as depending from or incorporating the limitations of an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0294705 A1 (hereinafter "Khripkov").
Claim 1: Khripkov discloses a radiator module comprising: a cavity having a front open surface and an upper slot defined in an upper surface thereof (e.g., see rectangular waveguide 215 having aperture 212 formed in a surface thereof, and non-radiative slot lines 232 formed in an upper surface of the waveguide 215, in FIGS. 3A and 5A, see Paras. 71-72); a widthwise feed line disposed under the upper slot and extending in a left-right direction of the cavity (e.g., see power feeding line 233 disposed on a lower surface of the traveling radiation-type structure 230 and connected with the waveguide 215 from a narrow wall to feed the slot line 232, see Para. 72); and a vertical probe extending in a vertical direction and disposed inside the cavity (e.g., see first antenna 402, a probe antenna disposed in the form of a column inside the aperture radiation-type structure 404, in FIGS. 5A-5B, see Para. 88).
The preamble recitation "for performing broadside radiation and end-fire radiation" is a statement of intended use that does not distinguish the claimed structure. See MPEP § 2111.02(II). Regardless, Khripkov FIG. 7 identifies layers L1 to L5 as conductive layers for a broad-side antenna array and layers L5 to L9 as end-fire antenna feed lines within the same stack-up (see Para. 109).
Claim 2: Khripkov discloses wherein the vertical probe receives electrical power from a first port via a first feed line, and wherein the widthwise feed line receives electrical power from a second port via a second feed line (a first power feeding port 213/406 extending from the RFIC power feeding line to the probe, and a separate second power feeding port 214/416 extending to the slot, e.g., see FIG. 3C, see Paras. 76, 88-90).
Claim 4: Khripkov discloses wherein the vertical probe is configured to perform the end-fire radiation through the front open surface (the first antenna 402 radiates toward the aperture 408, see Para. 88).
Claim 7: Khripkov discloses wherein the radiator module further comprises a metal layer pair, wherein the metal layer pair includes: an upper metal layer disposed in front of the upper surface of the cavity; and a lower metal layer disposed in front of a lower surface of the cavity and extending in parallel with the upper metal layer (the aperture radiation-type structure 404 is surrounded by two conductive layers arranged at an upper and a lower side, see Para. 89; see also first metal screen 106 and second metal screen 107 disposed on the top and bottom with the antenna elements interposed therebetween, see Para. 77).
Claim 18: Khripkov discloses an antenna device comprising a radiator array (array 201 of dual-type antenna elements 200) including a plurality of radiator modules as cited in the claim 1 rejection and a control circuit configured to apply a signal to the plurality of radiator modules (RFIC 300, whose plurality of ports individually connect to the elements), each element having the cavity, feed line and probe as set forth for claim 1 (e.g., see FIGS. 10A-11B, see Paras. 66-67, 105).
Claims 19-20: Khripkov discloses wherein the control circuit is configured to control each of the plurality of radiator modules to perform broadside radiation to perform broadside directional beamforming and end-fire radiation to perform end-fire directional beamforming (the power feeding line allows the plurality of RFIC ports to individually connect to the elements to excite the different modes and perform beamforming, and that phase-difference feeding sets the radiation direction, see Paras. 66, 74, 109).
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 3 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khripkov in view of "Wideband Dual-Polarized Endfire Antenna Based on Compact Open-Ended Cavity for 5G Mm-Wave Mobile Phones," by Sun et al., IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagation., vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 1632-1642 (hereinafter "Sun").
Claim 3: Khripkov teaches wherein the widthwise feed line is coupled to the upper slot (e.g., see power feeding line 233 disposed on a lower surface of traveling radiation-type structure 230 and connected with the waveguide 215 from a narrow wall to feed slot line 232, see Para. 72), but does not explicitly teach that the widthwise feed line is connected to the upper slot to perform broadside radiation.
However Sun teaches a slot etched on the top surface of an open-ended cavity and coupled-fed by a microstrip line disposed in the middle layer beneath the slot (e.g., see FIGS. 2(b) and 8(a), see Pgs. 1633, 1636), wherein the beam produced by the etched slot is upturned such that the element covers the broadside direction in addition to the endfire direction (e.g., see FIG. 5(c), see Pg. 1634, col. 2).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to couple the widthwise feed line of Khripkov to the upper slot so as to perform broadside radiation as taught by Sun, in order to obtain coverage in the broadside direction from the same cavity volume without extending the substrate and thereby reduce the shadow area produced by a single-direction beam. Khripkov itself contemplates such operation (e.g., see FIG. 7 identifying layers L1 to L5 as conductive layers for a broad-side antenna array, see Para. 109).
Claim 10: Khripkov does not explicitly teach wherein the upper slot includes: a widthwise upper slot extending in the left-right direction of the cavity; and a lengthwise upper slot extending in a front-rear direction of the cavity.
However Sun teaches a horizontal slot etched on the top surface of a cavity together with a vertical open slot etched on that same top surface, the two slots extending in mutually orthogonal directions (e.g., see FIGS. 2(b), 2(c), and 8(a), see Pgs. 1633-1634).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to form the upper slot of Khripkov as a widthwise upper slot and a lengthwise upper slot as taught by Sun, in order to excite an additional resonant mode within the same cavity and thereby widen the impedance bandwidth of the module (e.g., see Sun Pg. 1633, wherein etching the slot yields a dual-resonance response covering 24.5-29.5 GHz), and in order to obtain radiation of a second polarization from the cavity without any extension of its size (e.g., see Sun Pg. 1634, col. 1).
Claim 11: Khripkov does not explicitly teach wherein the radiator module further comprises a widthwise lower slot defined in a lower surface of the cavity and extending in parallel with the widthwise upper slot such that the widthwise upper and lower slots constitute a slot pair.
However Sun teaches a slot etched on a broad wall of an open-ended cavity in the vicinity of the radiating aperture, and teaches that the etched slot supplies a second equivalent magnetic current which combines with the equivalent magnetic current of the open aperture to form a two-element array (e.g., see FIG. 5(a), see Pg. 1634, col. 2).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to provide the modified Khripkov with a second, parallel slot on the lower surface of the cavity so as to constitute a slot pair with the widthwise upper slot, in order to generate the additional equivalent magnetic current taught by Sun symmetrically about the cavity, and thereby to avoid the beam upwarp that Sun attributes to a single, asymmetrically placed slot (e.g., see Sun Pg. 1634, col. 2; Pg. 1635, col. 2). Moreover, the mere duplication of an essential working part of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671 (CCPA 1960); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Claim 12: Khripkov does not explicitly teach the radiator module of claim 11, wherein a spacing between the slot pair and the front open surface is λ/4.
However Sun teaches that where the distance between the equivalent magnetic current of the aperture and the equivalent magnetic current of the slot is set to λ/4 and the phase difference between them is set to 90 degrees, a two-element endfire array is realized having maximum radiation in the endfire direction and a null in the backfire direction (e.g., see Eq. (2) and FIG. 5(a), see Pg. 1634, col. 2).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to space the slot pair of the modified Khripkov a distance of λ/4 from the front open surface as taught by Sun, in order to place a null in the rearward direction and thereby improve the front-to-back ratio of the module, which Sun reports as improving from 1.6 dB to 22.3 dB when the slot is so positioned (e.g., see FIG. 5(b), see Pg. 1635, col. 1).
Claim 13: as best understood, Khripkov does not explicitly teach the radiator module of claim 11, wherein an electric field generated from the widthwise upper slot and an electric field generated from the widthwise lower slot have the same magnitude and different phases opposite to each other and thus offset each other.
However Sun teaches that the two equivalent magnetic currents of the two-element array are equal in amplitude and separated in phase, and that the radiation fields so produced cancel one another in the backfire direction at the design spacing and phase difference (e.g., see Eq. (2) and FIG. 5(a), see Pg. 1634, col. 2). Sun further teaches employing out-of-phase cancellation within the same cavity structure to suppress an unwanted current direction and thereby raise the front-to-back ratio (e.g., see Pg. 1635, col. 2).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to excite the slot pair of the modified Khripkov with electric fields of the same magnitude and opposite phase as taught by Sun, in order to cancel the rearward radiation of the module and thereby improve its front-to-back ratio. Further, where the structure of the modified Khripkov is the same as the claimed structure, the recited relationship between the two slot fields is an inherent consequence of that structure. See MPEP § 2112(IV).
Claim 14: Khripkov does not explicitly teach wherein the radiator module operates as a cavity backed slot antenna performing the broadside radiation based on the lengthwise upper slot.
However Sun teaches that the slot etched on the top surface of the cavity constitutes a cavity-backed slot structure supporting its own radiation mode (e.g., see FIG. 2(b), see Pg. 1633, col. 2), and further teaches that the beam so produced covers the broadside direction (e.g., see FIG. 5(c), see Pg. 1634, col. 2).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to operate the modified Khripkov as a cavity backed slot antenna radiating in the broadside direction from the lengthwise upper slot as taught by Sun, in order to add a second radiator to the module without occupying additional board area, which Sun expressly identifies as the advantage of integrating the two elements in one cavity (e.g., see Sun Pg. 1632, Abstract; Pg. 1633, col. 2).
Claim 15: Khripkov does not explicitly teach wherein impedance matching is performed based on a width of the lengthwise upper slot, and wherein a frequency band is determined based on a length of the lengthwise upper slot.
However Sun teaches that increasing the slot length Ls shifts the lower band produced by the slot mode downward in frequency while leaving the cavity mode substantially unchanged, thereby permitting independent frequency control of the two modes (e.g., see FIG. 3(b), see Pg. 1633, col. 2 to Pg. 1634, col. 1), and further teaches that the geometry and position of the slot govern the impedance matching of the element and must be finely tuned to meet the bandwidth requirement (e.g., see FIG. 3(c), see Pg. 1634, col. 1). Sun thereby establishes the dimensions of the slot as result-effective variables.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to dimension the lengthwise upper slot of the modified Khripkov so as to set the operating frequency band and the impedance match as taught by Sun, in order to place the module in a desired 5G operating band while maintaining a reflection coefficient below −10 dB across that band. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khripkov in view of US 20210028556 A1 (hereinafter “Brar”).
Claim 5: Khripkov in view of Sun does not explicitly teach the radiator module of claim 1, wherein the cavity is divided into an upper space and a lower space around a dividing surface, and wherein the radiator module is configured to perform the broadside radiation using the upper space, and perform the end-fire radiation using both the upper space and the lower space.
However Khripkov teaches a stacked module in which the conductive layers are partitioned by function, layers L1 to L5 from the top serving as conductive layers for a broad-side antenna array while the layers therebelow carry the end-fire and vertical polarization feed lines (e.g., see FIG. 7, see Paras. 109-110), and further teaches that adjacent signal layers within the stack are isolated from one another by an intervening ground layer 200c (e.g., see FIGS. 8-9, see Para. 102).
Brar further teaches a finite ground plane 2007 interposed between an upper radiating structure and a lower radiating structure of the same element (e.g., see FIGS. 1-2, see Paras. 32-33).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to interpose a dividing surface within the cavity of Khripkov as taught by Brar, so as to divide the cavity into an upper space and a lower space, in order to isolate the broadside feeding structure from the end-fire feeding structure and thereby reduce mutual coupling between the two ports, a purpose Khripkov expressly recognizes (e.g., see Paras. 79, 102). The recitations directed to which space performs which radiation are met by the resulting structure, in which the broadside slot and its feed line lie above the dividing surface while the probe and the open aperture span the full height of the cavity.
Claim 6: Khripkov in view of Sun does not explicitly teach the radiator module of claim 5, wherein the dividing surface has a through hole defined therein through which the vertical probe passes.
However Brar teaches a ground plane 2007 having an opening hole 2008 defined therein for the feed probe 2000 (e.g., see FIGS. 1-2, see Para. 33).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to provide the dividing surface of the modified Khripkov with a through hole as taught by Brar, in order to route the vertical probe through that surface without shorting the probe to it, and so as to permit the probe to excite the cavity region on both sides of the dividing surface.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khripkov in view of US 20190165478 A1 (hereinafter “Jo”).
Claim 8: Khripkov teaches the metal layer pair of claim 7 (e.g., see the two conductive layers arranged at an upper and a lower side of the horn-shaped aperture radiation-type structure 404, see Para. 89) and teaches matching the aperture 212 of the waveguide with the outer space by an impedance transforming part 211 formed of a metal-dielectric (e.g., see FIG. 3A, see Para. 71).
Khripkov does not explicitly teach that the impedance matching between the radiator module and free space is performed based on a spacing between the metal layer pair and the cavity and a length in a front-rear direction of the metal layer pair.
However Jo teaches a cavity 113 serving as a matching region for the antenna, wherein a transverse length “w,” a longitudinal length “h,” and a height length “t” of the cavity are associated with impedance matching (e.g., see FIGS. 1A and 4, see Paras. 39-40, 85), and wherein impedance matching may be performed using the gap between the upper surface and the lower surface of the cavity (e.g., see Para. 86).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to dimension the spacing between the metal layer pair and the cavity of Khripkov, and the length of the metal layer pair in the front-rear direction, so as to perform the impedance matching as taught by Jo, in order to match the radiator to free space across a target frequency band and thereby maximize the transmitted power and minimize parasitic signal reflections, a purpose Khripkov expressly recognizes (e.g., see the discussion of impedance matching accompanying FIG. 12B).
Claim 9: Khripkov does not explicitly teach wherein a series capacitance component is induced based on a spacing between the metal layer pair and the cavity, and wherein an inductance component is induced based on the length in the front-rear direction of the metal layer pair.
However Jo teaches that an inductance and a capacitance based on the gap between the upper surface and the lower surface of the cavity 113 vary with the frequency of the transmitted and received signal and are utilized for impedance matching (e.g., see Para. 86), and that the inductance and the capacitance are determined by the transverse length “w,” the longitudinal length “h,” and the height length of the cavity (e.g., see Para. 40).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to realize the matching structure of Khripkov as a distributed reactance set by the physical dimensions of the metal layer pair as taught by Jo, in order to tune the band of the match without adding discrete components to the module, which is advantageous in the millimeter wave band where lumped components are lossy. Further, the recitation of which reactance arises from which dimension states an inherent electrical consequence of the combined structure and carries no patentable weight. See MPEP § 2112(IV).
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khripkov in view of Sun, and further in view of WO 2021/171284 A1 (hereinafter “Chayat”).
Claim 16: Khripkov in view of Sun does not explicitly teach the radiator module of claim 10, wherein the lengthwise upper slot has a length of λ/2, wherein the widthwise upper slot has a length of λ, and wherein the lengthwise upper slot and the widthwise upper slot are configured to be in contact with each other at a midpoint of the widthwise upper slot.
However Chayat teaches a cavity-backed slot antenna formed in a planar substrate, wherein the radiating slot 820 is cross-shaped such that a lengthwise arm and a widthwise arm are in contact with each other at a midpoint of the widthwise arm (e.g., see FIG. 8(a), see Para. 29; see also the joined orthogonal arms of slot 130 in FIG. 1).
Sun further teaches that the length of the slot is the parameter that sets the resonant frequency of the slot mode (e.g., see FIG. 3(b), see Pg. 1633, col. 2).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to join the lengthwise upper slot and the widthwise upper slot of the modified Khripkov at the midpoint of the widthwise upper slot as taught by Chayat, in order to excite both slot arms from a single feed point and thereby obtain two orthogonal polarizations from one aperture, which Chayat identifies as the purpose of the cross-shaped slot (e.g., see Para. 29). The recited slot lengths of λ/2 and λ are no more than the optimum or workable values of the result-effective variable identified by Sun, and their discovery involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II).
Claim 17: the modified invention of Khripkov is such that it teaches the radiator module of claim 16, wherein the vertical probe is disposed in front of the widthwise upper slot (e.g., see FIGS. 5A-5B of Khripkov, wherein the probe-shaped first antenna 402 is positioned between the slot line region of the traveling radiation-type structure and the aperture 408 of the aperture radiation-type structure 404, see Paras. 88-89).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMAL PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/AMAL PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights