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 .
Response to Preliminary Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 09 Mar 2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1-7, 9, 12, 20, and 22 have been amended, claims 8 and 21 have been canceled, claims 10-19 and 22 have been withdrawn, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-7, 9, and 20 are presently pending examination.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 09 Mar 2026, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments. The claim objections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 09 Mar 2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 regarding the terms “an axis direction of the cylinder”, “a part of a cylinder”, “a part of an ellipse”, “a part of an ellipsoid”, “a part of a sphere”, and “a part of a circle” have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments. These rejections have been withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 2 is obviated, because the amended limitation “the at least one lens of the plurality of lenses” is clear in referring to the same at least one lens described in claim 1.
However, the rejections of claims 3-7, 9, and 20 are maintained, because it is not clear as to which lenses of the plurality of lenses “at least one lens of the plurality of lenses” refers. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “at least one lens of the plurality of lenses” can refer to the same “at least one lens” described in claim 1, or a different lens or set of lenses within the same plurality of lenses.
If the “at least one lens” of claims 3-7, 9, and 20 refers to the same “at least one lens” of claim 1, then claims 3-7, 9, and 20 contradict claim 1, because claim 1 requires that the at least one lens has a specific shape, whereas claims 3-7, 9, and 20 require a different shape.
Applicant argues that by reciting “an elliptical arc segment” in claim 1 and “a circular arc segment” in claim 6, the terms “elliptical” and “circular” have distinct meanings because the scope of claim 6 must be different from claim 1, and therefore, “the presence of dependent claim 6 that specifically recites a ‘circular arc segment’ requires the interpretation that the ‘elliptical arc segment’ of claim 1 does not encompass circular cross-sections” (Remarks, pages 11 and 15-16).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the interpretation that “elliptical” excludes circles, claim 6 would be directly contradictory to claim 1. Claim 1 recites “an elliptical arc segment”, which would not include a circular arc segment. Claim 6 recites “a circular arc segment”, which is not included in claim 1, under Applicant’s interpretation (assuming that “at least one lens” in claim 6 is referring to the same at least one lens of claim 1). Therefore claim 6 contradicts claim 1 because claim 1 requires that the cross section is not circular, but claim 6 requires that the cross section is circular. These contradicting limitations make the claims unclear as to what shape is required.
Therefore, Examiner maintains the interpretation of “elliptical” to include circular shapes, as explained in the previous Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 09 Mar 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chu et al. (US Publication No. 20160240721 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Chu, Pohjonen et al. (US 20180020975 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Pohjonen, and Kim et al. (KR 20190010305 A), hereinafter Kim, as explained in further detail below.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments about In re Dailey (Remarks, pages 16-17), it is not clear from the claim nor the specification why the specific shape of the at least one lens of claim 1 is significant. The reasons provided by Applicant in their Remarks (page 17, “a cylindrical lens with an elliptical cross-section produces fundamentally different optical characteristics than one with a circular cross-section. The elliptical cylindrical lens of claim I provides asymmetric light focusing with different focal powers along different axes. The circular cylindrical lens of claim 6 provides symmetric light focusing with uniform focal power”) are not shown to be supported by the specification.
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 3-7, 9, and 20 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.
Claims 3-7, 9, and 20 recite “an external surface of at least one lens of the plurality of lenses”. It is not clear as to which lenses of the plurality of lenses “at least one lens of the plurality of lenses” refers. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “at least one lens of the plurality of lenses” can refer to the same “at least one lens” described in claim 1, or a different lens or set of lenses within the same plurality of lenses.
If the “at least one lens” of claims 3-7, 9, and 20 refers to the same “at least one lens” of claim 1, then claims 3-7, 9, and 20 contradict claim 1, because claim 1 requires that the at least one lens has a specific shape, whereas claims 3-7, 9, and 20 require a different shape that is not necessarily included in the shape described in claim 1.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 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 1-3, 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (US Publication No. 20160240721 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Chu, in view of Pohjonen et al. (US 20180020975 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Pohjonen, and Kim et al. (KR 20190010305 A), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 1, Chu discloses a wearable device (Figs. 80B-80D, paragraph [0227], annular shape accessory 96 or patch shape accessory 97), comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 1A, paragraph [0097], substrate 140), comprising a first side (see annotated Fig. 1A below);
at least one light emitting component mounted on the first side (Fig. 1A, paragraph [0097], light source 110) and configured to emit a light on at least one optical wavelength band (paragraph [0099]), wherein the at least one light emitting component comprises an out-light side (see annotated Fig. 1A below); and
a plurality of lenses disposed on the out-light side (Fig. 16A, paragraph [0125], encapsulant with multiple refractive index layers),
wherein the plurality of lenses corresponds to the at least one light emitting component (Fig. 16A, paragraph [0125], "encapsulant 111 with multiple refractive index layers over the light source 110"),
wherein the plurality of lenses is configured to reduce a divergence angle of the light (paragraph [0125], "The optical sensor module 10 enhances the signal strength because the total internal reflection of the emitted light is reduced while the light passes through the encapsulant 111 layer by layer outward from the light source 110", reducing total internal reflection and light extraction efficiency is analogous to reducing the divergence angle), wherein a refractive index of the plurality of lenses is greater than a refractive index of air (paragraph [0102], "the material of the encapsulants may have lower refractive index than the optoelectronics have and higher than the environment, such as air").
PNG
media_image1.png
333
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Although Chu further discloses that the at least one light emitting component comprises visible or infrared portions (paragraph [0099]), Chu does not explicitly disclose that the at least one light emitting component mounted on the first side comprises a red light emitting diode, a green light emitting diode, and an infrared light emitting diode, nor that the at least one light emitting component is configured to emit light on three optical wavelength bands.
However, Pohjonen teaches an electrode for a user wearable apparatus with an opening to provide an optical connection to electronic components (Abstract) comprising at least one light emitting component comprising a red light emitting diode, a green light emitting diode, and an infrared light emitting diode (Fig. 10, paragraph [0063], "electrode 1001 is connected to a LED that emits red light, the electrode 1003 is connected to a LED that emits infrared light, and the electrodes 1002 and 1005 are connected to LEDs that emit green light"), and configured to emit light on three optical wavelength bands (paragraph [0063], red, green, and infrared).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chu with the teachings of Pohjonen so that the at least one light emitting component comprises a red light emitting diode, a green light emitting diode, and an infrared light emitting diode, and that the at least one light emitting component is configured to emit light on three optical wavelength bands, because doing so enables measurement of heart rate (Pohjonen, paragraph [0037]) and oxygenation in biological tissue (Chu, paragraph [0107], red and infrared wavelengths are required).
Neither Chu nor Pohjonen explicitly discloses that a shape of the at least one lens is a part of a cylinder in a direction parallel to an axis direction of the cylinder, wherein a cross section of the part of the cylinder in a direction perpendicular to the substrate and perpendicular to the axis direction of the cylinder is a part of an ellipse, wherein an orthographic projection of the part of the cylinder on the substrate is a rectangle, and wherein a long side direction of the rectangle is parallel to a long side direction of a smallest rectangular area in which the at least one light emitting component is located.
However, Kim teaches a biometric information measuring device (Fig. 1, page 4 of English translation, optical sensor device 100) comprising a light emitting diode (Figs. 9b, 9f, page 11 of English translation, light source 921; page 4 of English translation, "The light source 111 may include, for example, an electric light source such as a light emitting diode (LED)"), and a lens disposed on an out-light side of the light emitting diode (Figs. 9b, 9f, convex lenses 910b, 910f),
wherein an external surface of at least one lens of the plurality of lenses forms a cylindrical segment in a direction parallel to a central axis of the cylindrical segment, a cross section of the cylindrical segment in a direction perpendicular to the substrate and perpendicular to the central axis of the cylindrical segment forms an elliptical arc segment, wherein an orthographic projection of the cylindrical segment on the substrate is a rectangle, and wherein a long side direction of the rectangle is parallel to a long side direction of a smallest rectangular area in which the at least one light emitting component is located (Figs. 9b, 9f, page 11 of English translation, cylindrical convex lens 910b, cylindrical convex lens 910f).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chu and Pohjonen with the teachings of Kim so that an external surface of at least one lens of the plurality of lenses forms a cylindrical segment in a direction parallel to a central axis of the cylindrical segment, a cross section of the cylindrical segment in a direction perpendicular to the substrate and perpendicular to the central axis of the cylindrical segment forms an elliptical arc segment, wherein an orthographic projection of the cylindrical segment on the substrate is a rectangle, and wherein a long side direction of the rectangle is parallel to a long side direction of a smallest rectangular area in which the at least one light emitting component is located, because doing so reduces the amount of noise light by changing the optical path of light emitted from the light source (Kim, page 7).
Regarding claim 2, the wearable device of claim 1 is obvious over Chu, Pohjonen, and Kim, as explained above. Chu further discloses that the at least one lens of the plurality of lenses comprises a surface fastened to the substrate (annotated Fig. 1A below, paragraph [0108]), wherein the surface comprises at least one concave cavity, wherein the wearable device further comprises at least one accommodation space surrounded by the at least one concave cavity and the substrate, and wherein the at least one light emitting component is disposed in the at least one accommodation space (Figs. 2-5, annotated Fig. 1A below, paragraph [0097], [0103], [0108]-[0113]).
PNG
media_image2.png
333
503
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, the wearable device of claim 1 is obvious over Chu, Pohjonen, and Kim, as explained above. Chu further discloses that the at least one lens of the plurality of lenses is a Fresnel lens (paragraphs [0105]-[0106], [0189]-[0190], [0192], [0197], microstructure 112), wherein the Fresnel lens comprises a surface facing away from the at least one light emitting component (Fig. 1A, paragraph [0105], top surface of encapsulant 111/microstructure 112), and wherein the surface comprises:
a protrusion (Figs. 1A and 13B show protrusions in microstructure 112); and
at least one circumferential groove (paragraph [0121], concentric circular pattern) having a sawtooth cross section (Figs. 1A and 13B show microstructure 112 with a sawtooth cross section) and disposed around the protrusion (paragraph [0121, concentric circular pattern).
Regarding claim 6, the wearable device of claim 1 is obvious over Chu, Pohjonen, and Kim, as explained above. Chu further discloses that an external surface of at least one lens of the plurality of lenses forms a cylindrical segment parallel to a central axis of the cylindrical segment, wherein a cross section of the cylindrical segment in a direction perpendicular to the substrate and perpendicular to the central axis of the cylindrical segment forms a circular arc segment, wherein an orthographic projection of the cylindrical segment on the substrate is a rectangle, and wherein a long side direction of the rectangle is parallel to a long side direction of a smallest rectangular area in which the at least one light emitting component is located (Figs. 66-69, paragraphs [0185]-[0186], [0193], [0195]-[0200]; first encapsulant 111 is a quarter cylinder; see annotated Figs. 66A-66C below).
PNG
media_image3.png
753
800
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kim also further teaches that an external surface of at least one lens of the plurality of lenses forms a cylindrical segment parallel to a central axis of the cylindrical segment, wherein a cross section of the cylindrical segment in a direction perpendicular to the substrate and perpendicular to the central axis of the cylindrical segment forms a circular arc segment, wherein an orthographic projection of the cylindrical segment on the substrate is a rectangle, and wherein a long side direction of the rectangle is parallel to a long side direction of a smallest rectangular area in which the at least one light emitting component is located (Figs. 9b, 9f, page 11 of English translation, cylindrical convex lens 910b, cylindrical convex lens 910f).
Regarding claim 7, the wearable device of claim 1 is obvious over Chu, Pohjonen, and Kim, as explained above. Chu further discloses that the at least one lens of the plurality of lenses (Figs 50-53, plano-convex lenses) is a convex lens (Figs. 50-53, paragraphs [0169]-[0172], plano-convex lenses).
Regarding claim 9, the wearable device of claim 1 is obvious over Chu, Pohjonen, and Kim, as explained above. Chu further discloses that the at least one lens is in contact with an out-light surface of the at least one light emitting component (paragraphs [0102], [0107], [0109]-[0113], [0115], [0120], [0122], [0128], [0133], [0137], [0141], [0145], [0150], [0180], [0184], [0188]-[0191], [0195]-[0196], [0200]; see annotated Fig. 1A below).
PNG
media_image4.png
348
445
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (US Publication No. 20160240721 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Chu, in view of Pohjonen et al. (US 20180020975 A1), hereinafter Pohjonen, and Kim et al. (KR 20190010305 A), hereinafter Kim, and further in view of Faber et al. (US Publication No. 20050267346 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Faber.
Regarding claim 4, the wearable device of claim 1 is obvious over Chu, Pohjonen, and Kim, as explained above. Neither Chu nor Pohjonen explicitly discloses that the at least one lens is a part of an ellipsoid, wherein an orthographic projection of the part of the ellipsoid on the substrate is an ellipse, and wherein a major axis direction of the ellipse is parallel to a long side direction of a smallest rectangular area in which the at least one light emitting component is located.
However, Faber teaches an optical blood analyte measurement apparatus (Abstract) comprising a light emitter with lenses of ellipsoidal shape (paragraph [0082], "The emitter optics may consist of multimode fibers, lens, lenses or optimized reflectors of parabolic or ellipsoidal shape").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chu and Pohjonen with the teachings of Faber to use a lens that is a part of an ellipsoid, wherein an orthographic projection of the part of the ellipsoid on the substrate is an ellipse, and wherein a major axis direction of the ellipse is parallel to a long side direction of a smallest rectangular area in which the at least one light emitting component is located, because doing so maximizes the collection of light from the source and irradiates a large area of tissue, which results in a stronger signal (Faber, paragraph [0082]).
Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a lens that is a part of an ellipsoid, wherein an orthographic projection of the part of the ellipsoid on the substrate is an ellipse, and wherein a major axis direction of the ellipse is parallel to a long side direction of a smallest rectangular area in which the at least one light emitting component is located, for the purpose of improving light dispersion, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Claims 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (US Publication No. 20160240721 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Chu, in view of Pohjonen et al. (US 20180020975 A1), hereinafter Pohjonen, and Kim et al. (KR 20190010305 A), hereinafter Kim, and further in view of Huang et al. (CN 106526721 A, previously cited), hereinafter Huang.
Regarding claim 5, the wearable device of claim 1 is obvious over Chu, Pohjonen, and Kim, as explained above. Neither Chu nor Pohjonen explicitly discloses that the at least one lens comprises at least two sub-lenses, wherein each of the at least two sub-lenses is a part of a sphere, an orthographic projection of the part of the sphere on the substrate is a circle, wherein each of the at least two sub-lenses corresponds to one of the at least one light emitting component, and wherein two adjacent sub-lenses of the at least two sub-lenses partially overlap.
However, Huang teaches an optical detection device (Abstract) wherein the at least one lens (Fig. 3, optical element 18b) comprises at least two sub-lenses (Figs. 5-6, translation page 6, last paragraph, central lens portion 24 and side lens parts 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, and 36), wherein each of the at least two sub-lenses is a part of a sphere (translation page 7, third paragraph, the cross sections of central lens portion 24 and side lens parts 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, and 36 are parts of a circle), wherein each of the at least two sub-lenses corresponds to one of the at least one light emitting component (Fig. 3, optical element 18b corresponds to light emitting element 14) , and wherein two adjacent sub-lenses of the at least two sub-lenses partially overlap (Fig. 6, radii of curvature R11, R21, R31, R12, R22, and R32 overlap with each other).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chu and Pohjonen with the teachings of Huang to use a lens that comprises at least two sub-lenses, wherein each of the at least two sub-lenses is a part of a sphere, an orthographic projection of the part of the sphere on the substrate is a circle, wherein each of the at least two sub-lenses corresponds to one of the at least one light emitting component, and wherein two adjacent sub-lenses of the at least two sub-lenses partially overlap, because doing so prevents epidermal scattering and improves the signal-to-noise ratio (Huang, translation page 3, third paragraph; translation page 6, second to last paragraph; translation page 8, fourth and fifth paragraphs).
Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a lens that comprises at least two sub-lenses, wherein each of the at least two sub-lenses is a part of a sphere, an orthographic projection of the part of the sphere on the substrate is a circle, wherein each of the at least two sub-lenses corresponds to one of the at least one light emitting component, and wherein two adjacent sub-lenses of the at least two sub-lenses partially overlap, for the purpose of improving light dispersion, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 20, the wearable device of claim 1 is obvious over Chu, Pohjonen, and Kim, as explained above. Neither Chu nor Pohjonen explicitly discloses that the at least one lens comprises at least two sub-lenses, wherein each of the at least two sub-lenses is a part of a sphere, an orthographic projection of the part of the sphere on the substrate is a circle, wherein each of the at least two sub-lenses corresponds to one of the at least one light emitting component, and wherein two adjacent sub-lenses of the at least two sub-lenses partially overlap.
However, Huang teaches an optical detection device (Abstract) wherein the at least one lens (Fig. 3, optical element 18b) comprises at least two sub-lenses (Figs. 5-6, translation page 6, last paragraph, central lens portion 24 and side lens parts 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, and 36), wherein each of the at least two sub-lenses is a part of a ellipsoid (translation page 7, third paragraph, the cross sections of central lens portion 24 and side lens parts 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, and 36 are parts of a circle), wherein each of the at least two sub-lenses corresponds to one of the at least one light emitting component (Fig. 3, optical element 18b corresponds to light emitting element 14) , and wherein two adjacent sub-lenses of the at least two sub-lenses partially overlap (Fig. 6, radii of curvature R11, R21, R31, R12, R22, and R32 overlap with each other).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chu and Pohjonen with the teachings of Huang to use a lens that comprises at least two sub-lenses, wherein each of the at least two sub-lenses is a part of an ellipsoid, wherein an orthographic projection of the part of the ellipsoid on the substrate is a circle, wherein each of the at least two sub-lenses corresponds to one light emitting component, and wherein two adjacent sub-lenses of the at least two sub-lenses partially overlap, because doing so prevents epidermal scattering and improves the signal-to-noise ratio (Huang, translation page 3, third paragraph; translation page 6, second to last paragraph; translation page 8, fourth and fifth paragraphs).
Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a lens that comprises at least two sub-lenses, wherein each of the at least two sub-lenses is a part of an ellipsoid, wherein an orthographic projection of the part of the ellipsoid on the substrate is a circle, wherein each of the at least two sub-lenses corresponds to one light emitting component, and wherein two adjacent sub-lenses of the at least two sub-lenses partially overlap, for the purpose of improving light dispersion, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE SISON whose telephone number is (703)756-4661. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 5 pm PT, Mon - Fri.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/CHRISTINE SISON/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/Jennifer Pitrak McDonald/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights