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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 9 of claim 1, the hyphen should be removed from the phrase “fiber-optical gyroscope” for consistency in claiming throughout the claims.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“A processing device . . . to determine a direction of heading during inertial navigation . . .” in claims 1-15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As for claim 4, the claim recites calibrating the fiber optic gyroscope to use the earth’s rotation to increase precision of the first rotation data along the critical axis. However, no support appears to be present in the instant specification for this limitation. The only description in the specification for calibration appears to be in paragraph 0012, which discloses that the user can walk around in a specific pattern or in a circle to initially calibrate the apparatus, and paragraph 0063 mentions that the user’s body position can vary during calibration. Additionally, the specification discloses using the earth’s rotation to calculate direction in paragraph 0010 and 0011, while stating that the rotation signal can be used to translate into a coarse heading in paragraph 0014. However, there appears to be nothing in the specification that directly ties calibrating the gyroscope by using the earth’s rotation to increase precision. As a result, the claim is rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 5 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 4, thereby containing all the limitations of the claim on which it depends.
If written description support exists in the instant specification for claim 4, the examiner respectfully requests such support be pointed out in any response filed to the instant Office action.
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.
Claims 2-5, 8-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “relatively critical” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively critical” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In the instant case, the term “relatively” is used in two instances; to describe “relatively a critical axis” and “relatively less critical axes”. However, the specification does not appear to provide a standard to ascertain which axis is relatively critical so that the first axis is aligned with it, and the second and third axes are aligned with relatively less critical axes. The specification mentions relatively non-critical axes in paragraph 0058 and Fig. 12, mentions a “most critical axis” and “less critical axes” in paragraph 0012, and calls the critical axis “the special sensor axis or the preferential sensor axis” in paragraph 0013, this does not appear to set forth what makes the first axis a relatively critical axis, and the second and third axes relatively less critical axes.
Claim 3 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 2, thereby containing all the limitations of the claim on which it depends.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the critical axis" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which critical axis is being referred to here? Claim 2, the claim on which claim 4 indirectly depends, recites three different critical axes – “a relatively critical axis” and “relatively less critical axes”.
Further regarding claim 4, the claim recites “calibrating the fiber optical gyroscope to use the earth’s rotation to increase precision of the first rotation data along the critical axis”. However, the claims of the instant invention are drawn to a method of forming a gyrocompass apparatus. As a result, it is unclear how “calibrating the fiber optical gyroscope” is part of the construction of a gyrocompass apparatus, as calibration would appear to be performed on an already completed apparatus. Is the calibration claimed in claim 4 part of the construction of the gyrocompass apparatus? If so, how does that take place?
Claim 5 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding both the lack of antecedent basis for “the critical axis” as found in line 2 of claim 5, along with the question as to whether or not calibrating the fiber optical gyroscope is part of forming a gyrocompass apparatus.
Claim 8 recites that the third modularized integrated photonics optical gyroscope which is mounted within the encasement provides third rotation data along the first axis. However, claim 1, the claim on which claim 8 depends, already recites that the second modularized integrated photonics optics gyroscope provides a third rotation data along a third axis. This makes claim 8 unclear; how can this third gyroscope provide third rotation data when the second gyroscope already provides third rotation data? Should the rotation data in claim 8 be fourth rotation data?
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the critical axis" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What critical axis is being referred to here? Claims 1 and 8, the claims on which claim 9 depend, fail to set forth a critical axis.
Further regarding claim 9, the claim recites “further comprising providing redundancy in availability of rotation data along the critical axis”. However, it is unclear what provides the redundancy in the availability of rotation data that is claimed. Is it the third modularized integrated photonics optical gyroscope that is mounted as part of claim 8? Even if so, how does providing redundancy act as part of the construction of the gyrocompass apparatus given that the claimed invention is drawn to a method of forming a gyrocompass apparatus similarly as to what was discussed above regarding claim 4?
As for claim 10, the claim recites “using the third rotation data instead of the first rotation data when the fiber optical gyroscope is in a powered off state”. However, the claims of the instant invention are drawn to a method of forming a gyrocompass apparatus. As a result, it is unclear how “using the third rotation data instead of the first rotation data” is part of the construction of a gyrocompass apparatus, as selecting which data is being used would be part of a method of using the apparatus, not making it.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the third rotation data" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As an extension of the rejection set forth above regarding claim 8, it is unclear if “the third rotation data” in claim 10 refers to the additional third rotation data of claim 8, or the initial third rotation data of claim 1.
As for claim 13, the claim recites “wherein a user can optionally turn off the GNSS signal to and from the receiver to avoid the user’s presence being detected”. However, the claims of the instant invention are drawn to a method of forming a gyrocompass apparatus. As a result, it is unclear how being able to turn off the GNSS signal is part of the construction of a gyrocompass apparatus, as such functionality would be part of a method of using the apparatus, not making it.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4, 5, 9, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding each of the above claims, as noted above in the 35 USC 112(b) rejection, the claims of the instant application are drawn to a method of forming a gyrocompass apparatus. However, each of these claims are drawn to limitations that are not directed to actual construction of the gyrocompass apparatus, but are instead drawn to steps of using the apparatus (such as calibration in claims 4 and 5, providing redundancy in claim 9, choosing which rotation data is used in claim 10, and being able to turn off a GNSS signal in claim 13). As a result, these claims are not seen to further limit the claims on which they depend, as they are drawn to limitations of using the gyrocompass, not forming the gyrocompass.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 and 6-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-7, 9, 10, and 16-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,287,208. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the method of inertial navigation using a gyrocompass apparatus disclosed by the ‘208 patent would inherently require forming the gyrocompass apparatus, as the limitations from the ‘208 patent disclose the limitations of the instant application as follows.
Regarding claim 1, the combination of claims 1 and 5-7 of the ‘208 patent claims a method of forming a gyrocompass apparatus with a portable form factor (as noted above, the method of inertial navigation using a gyrocompass apparatus disclosed in the ‘208 patent would inherently require forming the gyrocompass apparatus of the instant claim), the method comprising providing an encasement that serves as an outer housing of the gyrocompass apparatus (see claim 5 of the ‘208 patent); wrapping a fiber coil around a rigid frame, wherein the fiber coil is used as a rotation sensing element for a fiber optical gyroscope that is part of the gyrocompass apparatus (see lines 5-9 of claim 1 of the ‘208 patent); inserting the rigid frame wrapped with the fiber coil within the encasement; inserting a packaging substrate within the encasement (see claim 5 of the ‘208 patent), wherein the packaging substrate supports a first front-end chip that is coupled to the fiber coil, wherein the first front-end chip and the fiber coil are part of the fiber-optical gyroscope that provides a first rotation data along a first axis, the first rotation data being detected at the front-end chip (see lines 10-19 of claim 1 of the ‘208 patent); mounting a first modularized integrated photonics optical gyroscope within the encasement, such that the first modularized integrated photonics optical gyroscope provides a second rotation data along a second axis (see claim 6 of the ‘208 patent); mounting a second modularized integrated photonics optical gyroscope within the encasement, such that the second modularized integrated photonics optical gyroscope provides a third rotation data along a third axis, wherein the first axis, the second axis and the third axis are mutually orthogonal to each other (see claim 7 of the ‘208 patent; note that claims 6 and 7 also provide the orthogonality of the axes); and mounting a processing device on the packaging substrate, wherein the processing device uses one or more of the first rotation data, the second rotation data and the third rotation data as inputs to determine a direction of heading during inertial navigation in an environment that has weak or non- existent data for satellite-based navigation (see lines 20-24 of claim 1 of the ‘208 patent; the processing device of the instant claim is inherent to the ‘208 patent claim, as a processing device is needed to perform the function set forth therein).
Further claim correspondence is as follows:
Claim 2 of the instant application with claims 1 and 5-7 of the ‘208 patent (the examiner notes that the orientation step found in lines 14-19 of claim 1 of the ‘208 patent cover orienting the first axis with a critical axis, and as the second and third axes are perpendicular to the first axis, they would inherently be considered, in the best understanding of the examiner, relatively less critical axes).
Claim 3 of the instant application with claims 1 and 5-7 of the ‘208 patent, as a gyrocompass is inherently a north-seeking device.
Claim 6 of the instant application with claim 3 of the ‘208 patent.
Claim 7 of the instant application with claim 4 of the ‘208 patent.
Claims 8 and 9 of the instant application with claim 9 or 19 of the ‘208 patent.
Claim 10 of the instant application with claim 10 of the ‘208 patent.
Claim 11 of the instant application with claim 16 of the ‘208 patent.
Claim 12 of the instant application with claim 17 of the ‘208 patent.
Claim 13 of the instant application with claim 18 of the ‘208 patent.
Claim 14 of the instant application with claim 9 of the ‘208 patent.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,287,208 in view of Yao (2019/0234739).
As for claim 4, the combination of claims 1 and 5-7 of the ‘208 patent claims the invention as set forth above regarding claim 3, but fails to disclose calibrating the gyroscope to use the earth’s rotation to increase precision of the first rotation data along the critical axis.
Yao, in an optical gyroscope, discloses calibrating a gyroscope with a fixed rotation rate such as the rotation of the earth (see paragraph 0107).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calibrate the gyroscope of the ‘208 patent by using the earth’s rotation as taught by Yao, the motivation being to precisely determine the measurement of rotation while having the measurement be free of external effects due to proper calibration (see paragraph 0107).
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,287,208 in view of Paniccia et al (2020/0386944).
As for claim 15, the combination of claims 1 and 5-7 of the ’208 patent claim the invention as set forth above regarding 1, but fails to disclose including an accelerometer within the encasement.
Paniccia, in a device for integrated photonics optical gyroscopes, discloses incorporating accelerometers into the inertial measurement unit package of the device (see paragraph 0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an accelerometer to the gyrocompass of the ’208 patent as taught by Paniccia, the motivation being to increase the functionality of the gyrocompass by allowing it to measure more data, thereby allowing it to be used in additional applications (see paragraph 0037).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, and 15 would be allowable in view of the prior art should the double patenting rejections set forth above be properly overcome.
The examiner notes that any claim not listed above would be allowable in view of the prior art for the same reason as claim 1 as will be set forth below should the various 35 USC 112 rejections set forth above be properly overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 1, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method of forming a gyrocompass apparatus with a portable form factor, the method comprising, among other essential features, inserting a packaging substrate within the encasement where the substrate supports a first front-end chip that is coupled to the fiber coil, wherein the first front-end chip and the fiber coil are part of the fiber optical gyroscope that provides a first rotation data along a first axis, the first rotation data being detected at the front-end chip; mounting a pair of modularized integrated photonics optical gyroscopes to measure second and third rotation data along second and third axes; and mounting a processing device on the packaging substrate, wherein the processing device uses one or more of the first rotation data, the second rotation data and the third rotation data as inputs to determine a direction of heading during inertial navigation in an environment that has weak or non-existent data for satellite-based navigation, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
With further regard to the above claim, the prior art of record teaches various aspects of the claimed invention. US 2019/0353482 to Feke discloses a fiber management assembly for a multi-axis fiber optic gyroscope where an integrated optical circuit 332 is packaged into a housing 330, with a plurality of fiber coils 320a-320d wound onto fiber coil hubs 321a-321d and mounted on a mounting block 310 (see Fig. 3A and paragraph 0042). US 2021/0116246 to Paniccia et al. discloses integrated photonics optical gyroscopes including an IMU (see Fig. 3) and a gyroscope with an integrated photonics chip (see Fig. 1), where a plurality of gyroscopes can be integrated to cover the X-, Y-, and Z-axes (see Fig. 4). US Pat. 11,774,245 to Rosenberg discloses a vehicle hull with a fiber gyroscope wrapped around the inner hull of the vehicle (see abstract). CN 113984036 to Shi et al. teaches a portable three-axis optical fiber gyroscope (see Fig. 1) that is north seeking. Finally, "Fiber Optic Gyroscope GNSS/INS" by Advanced Navigation discloses a digital fiber-optic gyroscope inertial navigation system that includes features such as gyrocompassing and the ability to perform navigation when no absolute source of position is available. However, none of this prior art, taken either alone or in combination, appears to disclose the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2022/0003551 to Feshali et al. discloses the integration of photonics optical gyroscopes with MEMS sensors (see abstract); and US 2021/0116246 to Paniccia et al. discloses integrated photonics optical gyroscopes for autonomous vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael A. Lyons whose telephone number is (571)272-2420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 July 24, 206
Prosecution Insights