DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 02/20/2026. Claims 1-24 are pending in the application. Claims 14-24 have been withdrawn and claims 1-13 are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
3. All rejections from the previous office action are maintained in view of Applicant's amendment.
Response to Arguments
4. In the arguments presented on p.10-11 of the amendment, the Applicant argues that a routine optimization rationale cannot be used due to a lack of technical basis regarding the 5-35 wt% range of the photochromic polymer from the photochromic plastic material. Specifically, Romo does not disclose the use a photochromic polymer in its photochromic layer in any specific proportion because the Examiner’s rejection utilizing Romo optimizes the adjustment of a thickness of non-photochromic blocker and adhesive layers for UV attenuation and adhesion, not by adjusting the wt% of a photochromic polymer in the photochromic plastic material.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While it is true that Romo does not explicitly disclose the use a photochromic polymer in its photochromic layer in any specific proportion, this proportion being able to be changed via the thickness adjustment rationale allows for one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the thickness of the non-photochromic polymer layers and arrive at a specific mass/weight proportion, indirectly being the wt% of the photochromic polymer with respect to the entire weight of the photochromic plastic material.
Examiner believes the mapping may have been misinterpreted in the previous rejection of record by the Applicant, and thus for clarity, a drawing has been added below:
PNG
media_image1.png
347
871
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Applicant’s claim 1 limitation of a photochromic polymer wt% relative to a photochromic plastic material is a broad recitation. It appears as if the Applicant is intending the photochrome to be interpreted as a photochromic polymer, thus making the wt% limitation be the photochrome’s (506, see drawing above) wt% relative to the middle photochromic layer. However, with the current claim 1 recitation of “wherein the photochromic plastic material includes a photochromic polymer in an amount of from about 5 to about 35 percent by weight of total solids of the photochromic plastic material” can be read on with Romo’s Fig. 6D mapping above (see drawing above), where the photochromic plastic material is the entire solid material of Fig. 6D, and the photochromic polymer is the middle layer (Romo [0180] mentions “The middle layer 502d may be a polyethylene layer with photochromic materials 506 dispersed”, which is a photochromic polymer by definition).
In view of this clarified interpretation, the routine optimization rationale was directed towards the weight ratio of the photochromic polymer middle layer 502d in proportion to the entire photochromic plastic material of Fig. 6D (which includes the blocker 508d and adhesive layers 514d) via an indirect association. Romo indicates that the thickness of the blocker layer, for example, can be adjusted in thickness to attenuate/block desired levels of UV-A and UV-B radiation ([0180]).
Thus, the routine optimization is not specifically directed to the wt% of the photochromic polymer middle layer with respect to the entire photochromic plastic material of Fig. 6D, but rather the optimization of thickness of, for example, the blocker layer (to achieve a desired level of UV-A and UV-B radiation blocking). In doing so, the weight proportion (and thus wt%, since material thickness is positively correlated to weight) of the photochromic polymer middle layer will increase or decrease based on a decrease or increase in the thickness of the blocker layer, respectively. Thus, the proportion (and thus wt%) of the blocker layer relative to the entire photochromic plastic material composition of Fig. 6D being optimized also means the required component of the photochromic polymer middle layer is, by indirect association, also optimized.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
6. Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romo et al. (US 20150343102 A1, cited in prior office action) in view of Sood et al. (US 10987440 B1, cited in prior office action), and further in view of Talebpour et al. (US 20180001840 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Romo teaches:
PNG
media_image1.png
347
871
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a photochromic plastic material that changes from a first to a second color when exposed to UV light (adhesive photochromic strip of polymer film layers in Fig. 6D, see [0005]), that is visible under ambient lighting conditions (“unchanged color from its natural state (here, optionally clear)”, [0124], implying that there is an option for the natural, first color state to be a color that is not clear, and “Color change may be any number of colors and optionally is from clear to a purple color”, [0122], to which the purple color would be the second color, both colors being visible).
Romo further mentions the reversibility of the photochromic material, to which “the visual or textural activation may dissipate over time, returning the photochromic structure to the textural or visual state it was in prior to exposure to UV-C, once the sterilization or disinfection or UV-C exposure has been completed” in order to “allow reuse” ([0082]). Romo further mentions a timeframe in [0090], where the indicator element photochromic molecule can be selected based on characteristics such as “the time it takes for a photochromic molecule to display a visual change at a desired intensity and/or for a desired duration”.
Romo also mentions wherein the photochromic plastic material (Fig. 6D) comprises an upper layer (508d having blockers 510 for UV-A and UV-B radiation, Fig. 6D and [0180]), a middle layer (502d with photochromic material 506 and polyethylene, Fig. 6D and [0180]), and a bottom layer (514d can act as an adhesive, Fig. 6D and [0180]). The upper and bottom layer do not have photochromic molecules, which allow change the weight percentage of the middle photochromic layer with respect to the rest of the photochromic material ([0179] mentions how “thickness may be adjusted” in regards to the non-photochromic layer 512c in the Fig. 6C embodiment, which can be applied to Fig. 6D, as “any of the photochromic materials, or any of the blockers or film materials may be used in any of the examples”, [0180]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range of 5-35% wt of total solids of the photochromic material being the photochromic polymer through routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05,II) by adjusting the thickness of either the upper blocker layer (in order to attenuate/block more UV-A or UV-B radiation, keeping in mind “the thickness cannot be so large as to prevent exposure of an indicator element such as a photochromic material dispersed in the polymer layer of the indicator element”, [0128]) or the bottom adhesive layer (different types of adhesive, see [0180]).
Romo fails to teach a photochromic material being comprised in a protective assembly comprising a retrofitted protective bumper, comprising an elongated arcuate base, attachable to one or more surfaces in the area such that the retrofitted protective bumper covers at least a portion of the one or more surfaces, and wherein the base is arcuate on an external surface.
Sood teaches a UV disinfection system (100, Fig. 8) within a vehicle (800, Fig. 8) having a photochromic indicator (UV detector 122 is a photochromic indicator that can be placed on any suitable surface within the vehicle, Fig. 8, col. 19, lines 54-57 and 62) to indicate sterilization completion on a surface within the vehicle (col. 19, line 62 to col. 20, line 18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adhesive strip-like photochromic plastic material of Romo by applying it to a transportation vehicle interior surface as taught by Sood in order to indicate complete sterilization within the vehicle’s surfaces (Sood, col. 19, line 62 to col. 20, line 18).
Talebpour teaches a retrofitted protective bumper (rub strip assembly, Fig. 10), comprising an elongated arcuate base (body 1050, Fig. 10), attachable to one or more surfaces in the area (wall 102, Fig. 10) within aircraft interior surfaces (“a vehicle includes a passenger compartment that includes a floor. The vehicle includes a monument arranged in the passenger compartment, wherein the monument comprises a first wall”, [0004], where “Monuments are typically included in passenger compartments of vehicles, such as aircraft”, [0037]) such that the retrofitted protective bumper covers at least a portion of the one or more surfaces (body 1050 covers a portion of the wall 102 surface, Fig. 10), and wherein the base is arcuate on an external surface (body 1050 is arcuate and is attached onto the external surface of wall 102, Fig. 10) in order “to protect the monuments from damage and unsightly blemishes” ([0037]). It is important to note the rail of Fig. 10 is made of a plastic material ([0071]) but is silent to the material makeup of the rub strip (1020, Fig. 10).
In an alternative embodiment (Fig. 2A), both the rail (210) and rub strip (220) are also made of plastic ([0048-0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try and modify the rub strip material of Talebpour to be also plastic with a reasonable expectation of success because the functionality of the rub strip with respect to the rail and/or wall in the overall rub strip assembly would not have changed (MPEP 2143, Rationale E) and is thus predictable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Romo/Sood combination of a photochromic plastic adhered onto a vehicle surface by incorporating the adhesive plastic strip to Talebpour’s plastic rub strip assembly mounted within an aircraft in order to indicate complete sterilization of the vehicle’s surfaces (Sood, col. 19, line 62 to col. 20, line 18) while also “to protect the monuments from damage and unsightly blemishes” (Talebpour, [0037]).
Regarding the limitation of the photochromic plastic material being configured to change back from the second color to the first color after a predetermined period of time, these limitations are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus. All the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Romo in view of Sood further in view of Talebpour and the apparatus of Romo is capable of a reversible color change back to the pre-UV exposure color for the photochromic material. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Romo (see MPEP §2114).
NOTE: this is a recitation of functional language, and so long as the prior art structure reads on the instant claimed structure, this limitation would be met because the same structure would be capable of the same function; in this case, the photochromic plastic material has the capability to return to its original color after exposure to UV-C is completed. The feature of “after a predetermined time” is fully achievable as stated by Romo, because, as stated in [0091], a variety of photochromic materials can be used, an example being polyethylene or a polyethylene analog or derivative [0092], to which applicant’s specification [0031] mentions “retrofitted protective bumper 102 is made up of one or more photochromic polymers (e.g., High-density polyethylene (HDPE))”. The polyethylene material being structurally similar between Romo and applicant’s specification implies that the feature of a color change back from the second color to the first color after a predetermined period of time is an inherent feature of the polyethylene. The burden is herein shifted to applicant to provide sufficient evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 2, modified Romo teaches wherein the second color is visible under the ambient lighting conditions without a visual aid device ([0059]).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, modified Romo teaches a wavelength range between 200-280, more specifically 240-270 nm for the visual changes to the photochromic plastic strip (Fig. 6D) to appear (see [0009]).
Regarding claim 6, Romo in view of Sood in view of Talebpour teaches wherein the retrofitted protective bumper (Talebpour, Fig. 10, for the modification purposes stated in claim 1 rejection above) further comprises a non-photochromic plastic material (Romo, upper layer 508d and bottom layer 514d comprising material free of photochromic molecules, Fig. 6D) to indicate sterilization completion on a surface within the vehicle (Sood, UV detector 122, Fig. 8, col. 19, line 62 to col. 20, line 18).
Regarding claim 8, the Romo/Sood combination in view of Talebpour teaches wherein the retrofitted protective bumper (Talebpour, Fig. 10, for the modification purposes stated in claim 1 rejection above) comprises an insert (rub strip 1020, Fig. 10) configured to be mechanically coupled to a bracket (rail 1000, Fig. 10) that is attached to the one or more surfaces (attached to wall 102, Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 9, the Romo/Sood combination in view of Talebpour teaches wherein the insert (rub strip 1020, Fig. 10, for the modification purposes stated in claim 1 rejection above) comprises an elongated arcuate base (body 1050, Fig. 10) and a first pair of legs protruding from the elongated arcuate base (first and second retention tabs 1038 and 1042, Fig. 10) and defining a first channel therebetween (channel/gap 1018 between the retention tabs 1038 and 1042, Fig. 10), and wherein the bracket (rail 1000, Fig. 10, for the modification purposes stated in claim 1 rejection above) comprises an elongated base (body 1002, Fig. 10) and a second pair of legs protruding from the elongated base (protrusions 1010 and 1014, Fig. 10) and defining a second channel therebetween (channel/gap 1018 between the retention tabs 1010 and 1014, Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 10, the Romo/Sood combination in view of Talebpour teaches wherein the insert (rub strip 1020, Fig. 10, for the modification purposes stated in claim 1 rejection above) is configured for snap-fit insertion into the second channel (channel/gap 1018 formed between protrusions 1010 and 1014, Fig. 10) of the bracket such that the first pair of legs interlock with the second pair of legs (“the inward-facing notches 1012 and 1016 engage outward-facing notches 1040 and 1044, respectively, on the rub strip 1020 to hold the rub strip 1020 in place against the wall 102”, Fig. 10 and [0071]).
Regarding claim 11, the Romo/Sood combination in view of Talebpour teaches wherein the retrofitted protective bumper (rub strip assembly, Fig. 10) comprises an insert (rub strip 1020, Fig. 10) mechanically coupled to a bracket (attached to rail 1000, Fig. 10), wherein the bracket is attachable to the one or more surfaces via one or more fasteners to retain the bracket against the one or more surfaces (“The body 1002 includes a plurality of fastener holes 1004 (only one is shown in the cross-sectional view) to receive fasteners that attach the retaining rail 1000 to the wall 102 (or other surface)”, Fig. 10 and [0071]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Romo teaches wherein the first color is selected to substantially match a color of an interior of an aircraft (“Color change may be any number of colors and optionally is from clear to a purple color”, see [0122], and 84a, Fig. 3A).
Regarding the limitation of “to substantially match a color of an interior of an aircraft”, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. 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. See MPEP 2114,II.
The first color as taught by Romo is structurally identical, and therefore fully has the capability to achieve the intended use of the first color being substantially similar to the aircraft interior color with regards to the applicant’s invention.
Regarding claim 13, the Romo/Sood combination in view of Talebpour teaches wherein the one or more surfaces (wall 102, Fig. 10) to which the retrofitted protective bumper is attachable (rub strip assembly, Fig. 10, for the modification purposes stated in claim 1 rejection above) comprises one or more surfaces in an aisleway or corner within an aircraft (“Monuments are typically included in passenger compartments of vehicles, such as aircraft… a monument may include rub strips at floor level to protect against kicks, rub strips several feet above the floor to protect against impacts from carts and luggage, and vertical rub strips arranged at corners”, [0037]).
7. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romo et al. (US 20150343102 A1, cited in prior office action) in view of Sood et al. (US 10987440 B1), further in view of Talebpour et al. (US 20180001840 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Muller (US 20070003733 A1, cited in prior office action).
Regarding claim 3, the Romo/Sood/Talebpour combination teaches a retrofitted protective bumper (Talebpour, rub strip assembly, Fig. 10), but fails to teach wherein the retrofitted protective bumper is non-flammable.
Muller teaches a fireproof foil material 11 (Fig. 8) to provide preventative fire protection in the aircraft cabin 21 (Fig. 1, see [0039] for further context).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Romo/Sood/Talebpour combination of a photochromic indicator element attached to a rub strip assembly for indication of complete sterilization on airplane surfaces by incorporating a non-flammable material composition as taught by Muller, to prevent the spread of potential fire in aircraft (Muller, [0039]).
8. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romo et al. (US 20150343102 A1, cited in prior office action) in view of Sood et al. (US 10987440 B1, cited in prior office action), further in view of Talebpour et al. (US 20180001840 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Kadowaki (US 20040109133 A1, cited in prior office action).
Regarding claim 7, the Romo/Sood/Talebpour combination teaches a photochromic polymer layer (Romo, middle layer 502d having photochromic molecules and polyethylene, Fig. 6D and [0180]) of a photochromic material (Fig. 6D) attached/adhered to a retrofitted protective bumper (Talebpour, rub strip assembly, Fig. 10), but fails to teach wherein the retrofitted protective bumper further comprises a colloidal metal.
Kadowaki teaches a method of manufacturing plastic photochromic lenses, comprising: “one or more photochromic dyes… and a colloidal metal oxide” (see claim 1), in order “to significantly improve the basic performance of the hard surface film, such as resistance to abrasion and photoresistance” (see [0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Romo/Sood/Talebpour combination of the photochromic indicator element having a photochromic polymer layer attached to a rub strip assembly for indication of complete sterilization on airplane surfaces by incorporating a colloidal metal oxide to the photochromic film/layer such as a colloidal metal oxide as taught by Kadowaki in order to significantly improve the basic performance of the hard surface film, such as resistance to abrasion and photoresistance (Kadowaki, [0005]).
9. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talebpour et al. (US 20180001840 A1), in view of Romo et al. (US 20150343102 A1, cited in prior office action).
Talebpour teaches a protective assembly (Fig. 10) comprising: a retrofitted protective bumper (rub strip assembly, Fig. 10), comprising an elongated arcuate base (body 1050, Fig. 10), attachable to one or more surfaces in the area (wall 102, Fig. 10) within aircraft interior surfaces (“a vehicle includes a passenger compartment that includes a floor. The vehicle includes a monument arranged in the passenger compartment, wherein the monument comprises a first wall”, [0004], where “Monuments are typically included in passenger compartments of vehicles, such as aircraft”, [0037]) such that the retrofitted protective bumper covers at least a portion of the one or more surfaces (body 1050 covers a portion of the wall 102 surface, Fig. 10), and wherein the base is arcuate on an external surface (body 1050 is arcuate and is attached onto the external surface of wall 102, Fig. 10) in order “to protect the monuments from damage and unsightly blemishes” ([0037]). It is important to note the rail of Fig. 10 is made of a plastic material ([0071]) but is silent to the material makeup of the rub strip (1020, Fig. 10).
In an alternative embodiment (Fig. 2A), both the rail (210) and rub strip (220) are also made of plastic ([0048-0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try and modify the rub strip material to be also plastic with a reasonable expectation of success because the functionality of the rub strip with respect to the rail and/or wall in the overall rub strip assembly would not have changed (MPEP 2143, Rationale E) and is thus predictable.
Modified Talebpour fails to teach a protective assembly for visually indicating ultraviolet (UV) sanitization of an area, wherein the retrofitted protective bumper comprises a photochromic plastic material that, when exposed to UV light, changes from a first color to a second color that is different from the first color and the second color is visible under ambient lighting conditions and the second color visually indicates UV sanitization of the area, wherein the photochromic plastic material is configured to change back from the second color to the first color after a predetermined period of time, wherein the photochromic plastic material includes a photochromic polymer in an amount of from about 5 to about 35 percent by weight of total solids of the photochromic plastic material.
Romo teaches:
PNG
media_image1.png
347
871
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a photochromic plastic material that changes from a first to a second color when exposed to UV light (adhesive photochromic strip of polymer film layers in Fig. 6C, see [0005]), that is visible under ambient lighting conditions (“unchanged color from its natural state (here, optionally clear)”, [0124], implying that there is an option for the natural, first color state to be a color that is not clear, and “Color change may be any number of colors and optionally is from clear to a purple color”, [0122], to which the purple color would be the second color, both colors being visible), and the application of the photochromic plastic to an aircraft (see “Aeronautics”, [0109], where “Indicator elements in… strip configurations can be utilized to measure the exposure to UV-C energy”).
Romo further mentions the reversibility of the photochromic material, to which “the visual or textural activation may dissipate over time, returning the photochromic structure to the textural or visual state it was in prior to exposure to UV-C, once the sterilization or disinfection or UV-C exposure has been completed” in order to “allow reuse” ([0082]). Romo further mentions a timeframe in [0090], where the indicator element photochromic molecule can be selected based on characteristics such as “the time it takes for a photochromic molecule to display a visual change at a desired intensity and/or for a desired duration”.
Modified Talebpour and Romo are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of plastic material strips applied/attached to aircraft.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the plastic material composition of the entire rub strip assembly of Talebpour with a photochromic plastic material composition having a color reversibility feature as taught by Romo in order to indicate sufficient UV-C sterilization (Romo, abstract) in aircraft (Romo, [0109]) and to “allow reuse” (Romo, [0082]).
With this modification, modified Talebpour in view of Romo teaches a protective assembly (Talebpour, Fig. 10) for visually indicating ultraviolet sanitization of an area (Romo, photochromic plastic material indicator strip, Fig. 6D and [0005], for the modification purposes as stated in the paragraph above).
Romo also mentions wherein the photochromic plastic material (Fig. 6D) comprises an upper layer (508d having blockers 510 for UV-A and UV-B radiation, Fig. 6D and [0180]), a middle layer (502d with photochromic material 506 and polyethylene, Fig. 6D and [0180]), and a bottom layer (514d can act as an adhesive, Fig. 6D and [0180]). The upper and bottom layer do not have photochromic molecules, which allow change the weight percentage of the middle photochromic layer with respect to the rest of the photochromic material ([0179] mentions how “thickness may be adjusted” in regards to the non-photochromic layer 512c in the Fig. 6C embodiment, which can be applied to Fig. 6D, as “any of the photochromic materials, or any of the blockers or film materials may be used in any of the examples”, [0180]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range of 5-35% wt of total solids of the photochromic material being the photochromic polymer through routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05,II) by adjusting the thickness of either the upper blocker layer (in order to attenuate/block more UV-A or UV-B radiation, keeping in mind “the thickness cannot be so large as to prevent exposure of an indicator element such as a photochromic material dispersed in the polymer layer of the indicator element”, [0128]) or the bottom adhesive layer (different types of adhesive, see [0180]).
Regarding the limitation of “the photochromic plastic material being configured to change back from the second color to the first color after a predetermined period of time”, these limitations are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus. All the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Talebpour in view of Romo and the apparatus of the modified Talebpour/Romo combination is capable of a reversible color change back to the pre-UV exposure color for the photochromic material. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Romo (see MPEP §2114).
NOTE: this is a recitation of functional language, and so long as the prior art structure reads on the instant claimed structure, this limitation would be met because the same structure would be capable of the same function; in this case, the photochromic plastic material has the capability to return to its original color after exposure to UV-C is completed. The feature of “after a predetermined time” is fully achievable as stated by Romo, because, as stated in [0091], a variety of photochromic materials can be used, an example being polyethylene or a polyethylene analog or derivative [0092], to which applicant’s specification [0031] mentions “retrofitted protective bumper 102 is made up of one or more photochromic polymers (e.g., High-density polyethylene (HDPE))”. The polyethylene material being structurally similar between Romo and applicant’s specification implies that the feature of a color change back from the second color to the first color after a predetermined period of time is an inherent feature of the polyethylene. The burden is herein shifted to applicant to provide sufficient evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
10. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aham Lee whose telephone number is (703)756-5622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:00 AM - 8:00 PM EST.
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, Maris R. Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/Aham Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758