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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/12/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 6, 7, 8, 11, 15 and 16 are cancelled. Claims 1, 9, 12, 14 and 17 are amended. Claims 1 and 14 are independent claims. Claims 13, 14, and 17-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-5, 9, 10 and 12 are currently examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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 1-5, 9, 10 and 12 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites "... based on a pixel location of the reflection of the anchor pin in the at least one first image and a plurality of premeasured dimensions of the anchor pin…correlating a pixel location of the reflection of the run pin in the at least one second image to the determined first distance… …controlling the camera to capture a third image… based on a pixel location of the reflection of the run pin in the third image and the correlation of the pixel location of the reflection of the run pin in the at least one second image… ", which is not disclosed in the specification as originally filed. Claims 2-5, 9, 10 and 12 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
Claim 9 recites "... a first pixel location of the reflection of the run pin in the first first image and a second first pixel location of the reflection of the run pin in the second first image," which is not disclosed in the specification as originally filed. Claim 10 is rejected because it depends on claim 9.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9, 10 and 12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The recited in claim 1 “…determining a second distance… determining a second distance…” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear whether the “second distance” refers to the same second distance or not. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 1 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claims 2-5, 9, 10 and 12 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
The recited in claim 9 “…a second distance…” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear whether the “second distance” refers to the previously recited second distance or not. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 9 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
The recited in claim 9 “…a first pixel location of the reflection of the run pin in the first first image and a second pixel location of the reflection of the run pin in the second first image …” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear what “a first pixel location of the reflection of the run pin in the first first image and a second pixel location of the reflection of the run pin in the second first image” means. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 9 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 9, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura et al (US 20010054376 A1, “Mirua”) in view of Fuerhoff et al (US 6171391 B1, “Fuerhoff”).
Regarding claim 1, Miura teaches a real-time measurement system in a crystal puller for controlling (determining) a gap/melt level height (a distance) between a surface of silicon melt M in a crucible 4 and a lower end (bottom surface) of a cover 10/40 (reflector) while a crystal Ig is being pulled from the silicon melt M (figs 1 and 6, 0017, 0094, 0095, 0103), the cover 10/40 (reflector) defining a central opening 10h/40h (passage) through which the crystal Ig is pulled and the cover having a horizonal portion 40s comprising openings (for providing light transmitting objects 40s1) (figs 9, 0079), the real-time measurement system comprising a measurement assembly comprising a light transmitting first object 40s1 (a run pin) having a head that is visible through the opening(s) (figs 8 and 9); a second object 40s1 (an anchor pin) mounted to the reflector/cover (fig 9), the anchor pin (second object) including a head and an end opposite the head (fig 9), the anchor pin (second object) being sized to extend past the bottom surface/lower end of the reflector/cover (fig 9); a camera positioned to capture images through one of the opening in the horizonal portion of the reflector (cover 10/40) (figs 1, 5 and 9, 0039, 0045, 0047, 0071-0078); and a laser (figs 8 and 9, 0039 and 0074).
Miura teaches the laser, the camera, the surface of the silicon melt, the run pin and the anchor pin as addressed above, and further teaches a control system/unit 32/19/49 (controller) connected to the camera 47 and the laser 46 (figs 6-9, 0053, 0071-0091), adjusting the system using the anchor pin without touching the anchor pin to the silicon melt to get accurate image detection for controlling the gap (distance) between the bottom of the cover (reflector) and the melt level (surface) (fig 9, 0094-0095) by controlling the laser and the cameral capture images (fig 6, 0071-0091, 0094-0096), and the bottom surface (lower end) of the reflector (cover) (figs 8 and 9), and the control unit with a program (being programed) for automatically pulling the crystal while controlling the distance/gap between the surface of the silicon melt and the bottom surface of the reflector (figs 1 and 6-9, 0017, 0053, 0071-0091, 0094-0096, 0103), and a count of the pixels on the images of the objects (anchor pin/run pin) of the reflector/cover for determining/controlling the distance/gap (figs 6-10, 0071-0096), inexplicitly teaching pixel locations of the reflection of the anchor pin and run pin (which is located at the reflector/cover). Furthermore, Fuerhoff teaches a measurement system, wherein a controller is programmed to control the imaging for calibration and a reflector height (distance between a reflector and the melt level) based on pixel locations of reflections of the reflector (figs 2-8, abstract, col 2 line 45 to col 3 line 21; col 5 line 21-67; col 6 lines 34-63; col 7 line 1 to col 12 line 59). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Miura per teachings of Fuerhoff in order to provide an economically feasible and commercially practical conditions for silicon crystal growth process (Fuerhoff col 1 lines 5-10 and col 2 lines 27-45).
As addressed above, Miura/Fuerhoff teaches a similar arrangement of the instantly claimed system comprising the laser, the camera, the surface of the silicon melt, the run pin, the anchor pin, the programmed controller and the bottom surface of the reflector. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Miura/Fuerhoff is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of “calibrating the real-time measurement system using the anchor pin without touching the anchor pin to the silicon melt by controlling the laser to direct coherent light from the laser to the head of the anchor pin to produce the reflection of the end of the anchor pin on the surface of the silicon melt, controlling the camera to capture at least one first image through the opening in the reflector while the coherent light is directed at the anchor pin, the at least one first image including at least the head of the anchor pin, the end of the anchor pin, and a part of the surface of the silicon melt on which the reflection of the anchor pin is visible, determining a first distance between the surface of the silicon melt and the bottom surface of the reflector based on a pixel location of the reflection of the anchor pin in the at least one first image and a plurality of premeasured dimensions of the anchor pin, controlling the laser to direct coherent light from the laser to the run pin to produce the reflection of the run pin on the surface of the silicon melt, controlling the camera to capture at least one second image image through the opening in the reflector while the coherent light is directed at the run pin, the at least one second image including at least a part of the surface of the silicon melt on which the reflection of the run pin is visible, and correlating a pixel location of the reflection of the run pin in the at least one second image to the first distance between the surface of the silicon melt and the bottom surface of the reflector, and determine a second distance between the surface of the silicon melt and the bottom surface of the reflector while the crystal is being pulled from the silicon melt by controlling the laser to direct coherent light from the laser to the run pin to produce the reflection of the run pin on the surface of the silicon melt, controlling the camera to capture a third image through the opening in the reflector while the coherent light is directed at the run pin, the third image including at least a part of the surface of the silicon melt on which the reflection of the run pin is visible, and determining a second distance between the surface of the silicon melt and the bottom surface of the reflector based on a pixel location of the reflection of the run pin in the third image and the correlation of the pixel location of the reflection of the run pin in the at least one second image to the determined first distance between the surface of the silicon melt and the bottom surface of the reflector.” A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 2, Miura/Fuerhoff teaches that the run pin (object) is mounted in the reflector (Miura figs 8 and 9).
Regarding claim 3, Miura/Fuerhoff teaches that the run pin includes an end opposite the head of the pin (Miura figs 8 and 9). Miura/Fuerhoff teaches a similar structure and/or arrangement of the run pin, the camera, the opening and the surface of the melt. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that “the reflection of the run pin is a reflection of the end of the run pin, and the end of the run pin is not visible to the camera through the opening.” A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 4, Miura/Fuerhoff teaches that the run pin (object) comprises a quartz run pin (Miura 0074).
Regarding claim 5, Miura/Fuerhoff teaches that the run pin (object) is sized and positioned to prevent the run pin from touching the surface of the silicon melt when the crystal is being pulled from the silicon melt (Miura figs 1, 6-8). Also, In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 9, Miura/Fuerhoff teaches the camera, the opening, the laser, the bottom surface of the reflector, the anchor pin, the surface of the silicon melt, the distance between the surface of the melt and the bottom of the reflector being controlled and adjusted, and the controller being programmed, similar to the instantly claimed structural elements. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the controller of Miura/Liu is capable of “control the camera to capture the at least one first image by controlling the camera to capture a first first image through the opening in the reflector assembly while the coherent light is directed at the head of the anchor pin and the surface of the melt is at a first distance from the bottom of the reflector; controlling the camera capture a second first image through the opening in the reflector assembly while the coherent light is directed at the head of the anchor pin when the surface of the melt is at a second distance from the bottom of the reflector; the second distance having a known difference from the first distance, and determine the first distance between the surface of the silicon melt and the bottom surface of the reflector based at least in part on the plurality of premeasured dimensions of the anchor pin, a first pixel location of the reflection of the run pin in the first first image and a second pixel location of the reflection of the run pin in the second first image.” A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 10, Miura/Fuerhoff teaches that the controller is programmed, and further teaches a crucible lift to move the crucible to change the distance between the surface of the silicon melt and the bottom surface of the reflector by known amounts (Miura figs 1 and 6, 0034-0045, 0069-0076). Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the controller of Miura/Liu is capable of “moving the crucible from the first distance by a known amount to position the surface of the melt at the second distance from the bottom of the reflector.” A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 12, Miura/Fuerhoff teaches a system for producing the silicon ingot Ig (Miura figs 1 and 6. 0038), the system including the crucible for holding the silicon melt M (Miura figs 1 and 6. 0038); and the measurement system of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments that “the cited references do not include the claimed combination, including two pins (anchor and run) as recited and a controller programmed to perform all of the steps recited in claim 1… neither Miura nor Fuerhoff describes or suggests using the two light transmitting objects to perform the specific calibration steps and the specific steps for determining the running distance while pulling the crystal from the silicon melt … Miura’s measurement fails to recognize or suggest any calibration that is needed before the distance between the melt surface and the bottom of the reflector may be determined and further fails to suggest the specific calibration techniques … Fuerhoff does not use any pins or any images including the reflection from any pin… the references do not describe or suggest determining “a second distance between the surface of the silicon melt and the bottom surface of the reflector while the crystal is being pulled from the silicon melt by: controlling the laser to direct coherent light from the laser to the run pin to produce the reflection of the run pin on the surface of the silicon melt, controlling the camera to capture a third image through the opening in the reflector while the coherent light is directed at the run pin ... and determining a second distance between the surface of the silicon melt and the bottom surface of the reflector based on a pixel location of the reflection of the run pin in the third image and the correlation of the pixel location of the reflection of the run pin in the third image and the correlation of the pixel location of the reflection of the run pin in the at least one second image to the first distance.”… When functional language is associated with programming or specific structure to perform the function, “that programming or structure must be present in order to meet the claim limitation”… Miura and Fuerhoff do not describe or suggest systems that are capable of performing each and every function recited in claim 1 without further programming… Accordingly, the proposed combination of Miura and Fuerhoff fails to describe or suggest each and every recitation of claim 1 and claim 1 is patentable over the combination of Miura and Lu” have been considered, but not found persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s arguments above, the applicant admitted that Miura’s two light transmitting objects can be considered as anchor and run pins. Besides the anchor pin and the run pin, Miura also teaches the system comprising a reflector, a camera positioned to capture images through one of the opening in the horizonal portion of the reflector, a laser and a control system/unit (controller) connected to the camera and the laser, adjusting the system using the anchor pin without touching the anchor pin to the silicon melt to get accurate image detection for controlling the gap (distance) between the bottom of the cover (reflector) and the melt level (surface) by controlling the laser and the cameral capture images and the bottom surface (lower end) of the reflector (cover) as detailed addressed in the art rejection provided above. It is noted that Miura does not explicitly teach the controller being programmed. However, Fuerhoff teaches a measurement system, wherein a controller is programmed to control the imaging for calibration and a reflector height (distance between a reflector and the melt level) (col 5 line 21-67; col 6 lines 34-63; col 9 lines 1-67 and col 12 lines 44-59). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Miura per teachings of Fuerhoff in order to provide an improved system, which is economically feasible and commercially practical (Fuerhoff col 2 lines 34-45). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As just addressed above, Miura/Fuerhoff teaches a similar arrangement of the instantly claimed system comprising the laser, the camera, the surface of the silicon melt, the run pin, the anchor pin, the programmed controller and the bottom surface of the reflector. Therefore, it is reasonably expected that the apparatus of Miura/Fuerhoff is capable of performing the instantly claimed functions of “calibrating the real-time measurement system using the anchor pin without touching the anchor pin to the silicon melt by controlling the laser to direct coherent light from the laser to the head of the anchor pin to produce the reflection of the end of the anchor pin on the surface of the silicon melt, controlling the camera to capture at least one first image through the opening in the reflector while the coherent light is directed at the anchor pin, the at least one third image including at least the head of the anchor pin, the end of the anchor pin, and a part of the surface of the silicon melt on which the reflection of the anchor pin is visible, determining a first distance between the surface of the silicon melt and the bottom surface of the reflector based on a pixel location of the reflection of the anchor pin in the at least one first image and a plurality of premeasured dimensions of the anchor pin, controlling the laser to direct coherent light from the laser to the run pin to produce the reflection of the run pin on the surface of the silicon melt, controlling the camera to capture at least one second image through the opening in the reflector while the coherent light is directed at the run pin, the at least one second image including at least a part of the surface of the silicon melt on which the reflection of the run pin is visible, and correlating a location of the reflection of the run pin in the at least one second image to the determined first distance, and determine a running distance between the surface of the silicon melt and the bottom surface of the reflector while the crystal is being pulled from the silicon melt by controlling the laser to direct coherent light from the laser to the run pin to produce the reflection of the run pin on the surface of the silicon melt, controlling the camera to capture running images through the opening in the reflector while the coherent light is directed at the run pin, the running images including at least a part of the surface of the silicon melt on which the reflection of the run pin is visible, and determining the running distance between the surface of the silicon melt and the bottom surface of the reflector based on a location of the reflection of the run pin in the running images and the correlation of the location of the reflection of the run pin in the at least one second image to the determined first distance.” A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As addressed above, Miura/Fuerhoff teaches the systems comprising the laser, the camera, the surface of the silicon melt, the reflector, the run pin, the anchor pin, the programmed controller for determining the distance/gap between the surface of the silicon melt and the bottom surface of the reflector while a crystal is being pulled from the silicon melt, which is substantially the same and/or similar to the instantly claimed system; based on these factual teachings of Miura/Fuerhoff, the examiner’s positions is that the systems of Miura/Fuerhoff are capable of performing each and every function recited in claim 1 without further programming. Therefore, the argument concerning " Miura and Fuerhoff do not describe or suggest systems that are capable of performing each and every function recited in claim 1 without further programming" merely represents the counselor’s opinion, which is not supported by factual evidence. Finally, arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it is examiner’s position that a prima facie case of obviousness is well-established per teachings/combination of the instantly cited references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hua Qi whose telephone number is (571)272-3193. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/HUA QI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights