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 Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed May 18, 2026 has been fully considered and entered.
In applicant claims filed on May 18, 2026, Applicant cancelled claims 22 and 25. New claims 28-28 were added. Thus, claims 1-14 and 21, 23-24, and 26-28 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1-14 and 21-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Inventorship
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 and 21, 23-24, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “the third portion of the capillary is configured with a tapered thickness based on the second non-zero slope profile” in lines 17-19. The limitation is interpreted as the final thickness of the capillary will match the slope of second non-zero slope profile. The specification does not provide support for this limitation since it does not, explicitly or implicitly imply that the final thickness of the capillary tracks or correlates to the specific mathematical slope profile of the second non-zero slope. While the specification generally discloses a tapered capillary, it fails to provide adequate written descriptive support, such as corresponding geometric dimensions, specific functional relationships, or structural embodiments, that would demonstrate to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor was in possession of a capillary whose tapered thickness is specifically dictated by the "second non-zero slope profile" as now claimed. Accordingly, the claimed limitation introduces new matter not originally found in the disclosure. The figures could not be relied upon for support in this case because the specification did not specifically teach they were to scale and to do so would contradict the MPEP 2125. Claims 2-8 and 27-28 are rejected due to their ultimate dependency on a rejected claim.
Claims 9 and 21 recite “the second portion is configured with a capillary with a tapered thickness based on the second non-zero slope profile.” The limitation is interpreted the final thickness of the capillary will match the slope of second non-zero slope profile. The specification does not provide support for this limitation since is does not , explicitly or implicitly imply that the final thickness of the capillary tracks or correlates to the specific mathematical slope profile of the second non-zero slope. While the specification generally discloses a tapered capillary, it fails to provide adequate written descriptive support, such as corresponding geometric dimensions, specific functional relationships, or structural embodiments, that would demonstrate to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor was in possession of a capillary whose tapered thickness is specifically dictated by the "second non-zero slope profile" as now claimed. Accordingly, the claimed limitation introduces new matter not originally found in the disclosure. The figures could not be relied upon for support in this case because the specification did not specifically teach they were to scale and to do so would contradict the MPEP 2125. Claims 10-14, 23-24, and 26 are rejected due to their ultimate dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim 28 recites “a ratio of an inner diameter of the third portion of the capillary, to an outer diameter of the third portion of the capillary, is configured to be smaller along the third portion of the capillary based on the second non-zero slope profile.” The specification does not provide support for this limitation since is does not , explicitly or implicitly imply that the final thickness of the capillary tracks or correlates to the specific mathematical slope profile of the second non-zero slope. While the specification generally discloses a taper ratio, it fails to provide adequate written descriptive support, such as corresponding geometric dimensions, specific functional relationships, or structural embodiments, that would demonstrate to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor was in possession of a capillary whose tapered thickness is specifically dictated by the "second non-zero slope profile" as now claimed. Accordingly, the claimed limitation introduces new matter not originally found in the disclosure. The figures could not be relied upon for support in this case because the specification did not specifically teach that they were to scale and to do so would contradict the MPEP 2125.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kawasaki (US20220413219A1).
Regarding claim 21, Kawasaki discloses A device comprising (Figure 2. Optical Coupler): a plurality of input fibers within the device (21); a first portion (21B)of the device configured with a first non-zero slope(Par. [0027]) profile along a first portion of an output end (Figure 2 represents the output end of the optical coupler of Figure 1.); and a second portion (21D) of the device configured with a second non-zero slope (Par. [0027]) profile along a second portion of the output end, wherein the second non-zero slope profile is different than the first non-zero slope profile(Para. [0033] indicates the tapered portion have dynamic variable taper ratios that are not necessarily identical to each other at any given point, but rather depend on their specific position relative to the output fiber).
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botheroyd (US9897759B2) in view of Kawasaki (US20220413219A1).
Regarding claim 1, Botheroyd discloses a fiber combiner (Figure 1) comprising: a capillary (Figure 4. Capillary 41); and a plurality of input fibers (Figure 4. Input fiber bundle 1002), wherein: a first portion of the plurality of input fibers (1002) is disposed within a first portion of the capillary (41) along a first portion of an output end of the fiber combiner (Figure 4 represents the output end of the fiber combiner of Figure 1. The first portion of the output end is considered as the portion comprising the fiber bundle 1002 within a capillary 41); the first portion of the capillary has a zero-slope profile along the first portion of the output end of the fiber combiner (Figure 4. Although the specification does not clearly state a zero slope profile of the first portion, the specification does define the second portion as adiabatic, indicating that there is no slope profile in the first portion of the fiber combiner of Botheroyd); a second portion of the plurality of input fibers is disposed within a second portion of the capillary along a second portion of the output end of the fiber combiner (The second portion of Botheroyd is characterized in figure 4 which illustrates a taper (2) defined from a first end (8) to a second end (10). Figure 6 illustrates the taper (2) is formed from a plurality of optical fibers (61) surrounded by a capillary (64). Column 9 lines 31-37); the second portion of the capillary has a first non-zero slope profile along the second portion of the output end of the fiber combiner (Taper (2) is an adiabatic taper. Column 6 lines 46-48); a portion of the plurality of input fibers is present along a portion of the output end of the fiber combiner; and no portion of the capillary is present along the portion of the output end of the fiber combiner (Figure 18 illustrates a taper, (2) a region of fused fibers (2070) and a waste section (2090). The waist section (2090) is considered to be the third portion of the fiber combiner. A cleave point can be located in the waist section (2090) that is not within the capillary. Column 13 line 25-27). Botheroyd fails to disclose four separate portions, two of which are non-zero slope profiles with different non-zero slope profiles.
Kawasaki teaches an optical coupler comprising four distinct segments (21A, 21B,21C, 21D) as seen in figure 2, with two tapered portions 21B and 21D. Additionally, Kawasaki teaches different taper ratios in different tapered portions; and when separate tapered portions have different taper ratios (non-zero slope profiles) it is not mandatory to have isodiametric portions in between the tapered portions. (Par. [0033] and [0072]).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fiber combiner of Botheroyd with the tapered portion arrangement of Kawasaki to optimize light transmission and coupling efficiency.
PNG
media_image1.png
260
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Botheroyd/ Kawasaki disclose the fiber combiner of claim 1. Botheroyd further discloses two portions of the plurality of input fibers are each arranged in a fused bundle configuration (Column 13 lines 21-24. As interpreted in claim 1, the taper section (2) and waist section (2090) are considered to be two separate portions.) Botheroyd fails to disclose the fused bundles specifically in a third and fourth portion of the combiner.
Kawasaki teaches a fiber bundle in the third (21C) and fourth(21D) portion of the fiber combiner (Par. [0026]).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fiber combiner of Botheroyd with the arrangement of Kawasaki in order to improve the mechanical stability and optical alignment of the fibers while enable high power operation.
Regarding Claim 3, Botheroyd/ Kawasaki disclose the fiber combiner of claim 1. Botheroyd further discloses that the non-zero slope profile is an adiabatic slope profile (Taper (2) is an adiabatic taper. Column 6 lines 46-48). Because the fiber combiner of Botheroyd has only one tapered portion, it fails to teach a second non-zero slope that is an adiabatic slope profile.
Kawasaki teaches a fiber combiner having multiple tapered portions (Figure 2 21B and 21D).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fiber combiner with an adiabatic slope profile of Botheroyd to include the second tapered adiabatic slope profile portion of Kawasaki because it is well known in the art that tapered fiber sections should be adiabatic in order to minimize coupling loss and preserve beam quality in optimized fiber combining systems. Accordingly, configuring Kawasaki’s multiple tapered portions as adiabatic tapers represents the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Regarding claim 4, Botheroyd/ Kawasaki disclose the fiber combiner of claim 1. Botheroyd further discloses the fiber combiner is a pump combiner, and the plurality of input fibers are pump fibers (Column 9 lines 5-12). Botheroyd teaches the optical source may be a laser diode emitting pump radiation. If the optical source is a laser diode emitting pump radiation, the component used to combine these sources is a pump combiner which utilizes pump fibers, often multimode (column 9 lines 23-24), to merge light into a single fiber.
Regarding claim 5, Botheroyd/Kawasaki disclose the fiber combiner of claim 1. Botheroyd further discloses the fiber combiner is a pump- signal combiner, and at least one of the plurality of input fibers is a signal fiber (Column 13 lines 61-64). Botheroyd teaches the fiber combiner may be used for real-time monitoring via back-reflected signals. In order for a fiber combiner to be used for that purpose and given the fact that it was established that the fiber combiner is a pump combiner as mentioned in claim 4, the fiber combiner would have to be a pump signal combiner with at least one signal fiber in order for monitoring to occur.
Regarding claim 6, Botheroyd/ Kawasaki discloses the fiber combiner of claim 1. Botheroyd/ Kawasaki further discloses a portion of the plurality of input fiber has another zero-slope profile along the portion of the output end of the fiber combiner. Figure 20 of Botheroyd shows a portion after the taper portion (2) that appears to have a zero-slope profile. Although the specification does not clearly state, a zero-slope profile of the portion, the specification does define the second portion as adiabatic, indicating that there is no slope profile in the first portion or last portions of the fiber combiner of Botheroyd Additionally Figure 3 of Kawasaki shows an additional non tapered portion (21G isodiametric portion) that appears to have a zero-slope profile. Although the specification does not clearly state, a zero-slope profile of the portion (21G), the specification does define 21G as an isodiametric portion, indicating a zero-slope profile).
Regarding claim 7, Botheroyd/Kawasaki discloses the fiber combiner of claim 1. Kawasaki discloses the fourth portion (21D) of the plurality of input fibers has a non-zero slope profile (Par. [0027]) along the fourth portion(21D) of the output end of the fiber combiner(20A). Kawasaki fails to disclose that fourth portion is a third non-zero slope profile. However, according to paragraph [0072] a different embodiment may have a plurality of tapered portions having different taper ratios without having isodiametric portion in between then. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the fiber combiner of Kawasaki in a way that would produce a third non-zero slope profile, as a matter of predictable variation to achieve the desired optical performance.
Regarding claim 8, Botheroyd/Kawasaki discloses the fiber combiner of claim 1. Botheroyd/Kawasaki further discloses the fourth (last) portion of the plurality of input fibers is connected to an output fiber of an output component. As seen in figure 2 of Botheroyd, the last portion of the input fibers are coupled to the output optical fiber (3). As seen in figure 2 of Kawasaki, the fourth portion (21D) of the input fibers are coupled to an output-type optical fiber (22).
Regarding claim 9, Botheroyd discloses a fiber combiner comprising (Figure 1): a capillary (Figure 4. Capillary 41); and a plurality of input fibers disposed within the capillary (Figure 4. Input fiber bundle 1002), wherein: a first portion (1002) of the capillary (41) along a first portion of an output end of the fiber combiner (Figure 4 represents the output end of the fiber combiner of Figure 1. The first portion of the output end of Botheroyd is considered to be the portion comprising the fiber bundle 1002 within a capillary 41); and a second portion of the capillary has a non-zero slope profile (Taper (2) is an adiabatic taper. Column 6 lines 46-48) along a second portion of the output end of the fiber combiner (The second portion of Botheroyd is characterized in figure 4 which illustrates a taper (2) defined from a first end (8) to a second end (10)).
Botheroyd fails to disclose the first portion has a first non-zero slope profile and the second non-zero profile is different than the first non-zero slope profile.
Kawasaki teaches a first portion (21B) and second portion (21D) that have different taper ratios (Para. [0033] indicates the tapered portion have dynamic variable taper ratios that are not necessarily identical to each other at any given point, but rather depend on their specific position relative to the output fiber).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fiber combiner of Botheroyd with the tapered portion arrangement of Kawasaki to optimize light transmission and coupling efficiency.
Regarding claim 10, Botheroyd/Kawasaki discloses the fiber combiner of claim 9. Botheroyd further discloses no portion of the capillary is present along a third portion of the output end of the fiber combiner (Figure 18 illustrates a taper, (2) a region of fused fibers (2070) and a waste section (2090). The waist section (2090) is considered to be the third portion of the fiber combiner. A cleave point can be located in the waist section (2090) that is not within the capillary. Column 13 line 25-27).
Regarding claim 11, Botheroyd/Kawasaki discloses the fiber combiner of claim 9. Botheroyd further disclose a first portion of the plurality of input fibers (1002) is disposed within the first portion of the capillary (41) along the first portion of the output end of the fiber combiner (Figure 4 represents the output end of the fiber combiner of Figure 1. The first portion of the output end of Botheroyd is considered to be the portion comprising the fiber bundle 1002 within a capillary 41); a second portion of the plurality of input fibers is disposed within the second portion of the capillary along the second portion of the output end of the fiber combiner (The second portion of Botheroyd is characterized in figure 4 which illustrates a taper (2) defined from a first end (8) to a second end (10). Figure 6 illustrates the taper (2) is formed from a plurality of optical fibers (61) surrounded by a capillary (64). Column 9 lines 31-37); a third portion of the plurality of input fibers is present along a third portion of the output end of the fiber combiner; and no portion of the capillary is present along the third portion of the output end of the fiber combiner (Figure 18 illustrates a taper, (2) a region of fused fibers (2070) and a waste section (2090). The waist section (2090) is considered to be the third portion of the fiber combiner. A cleave point can be located in the waist section (2090) that is not within the capillary. Column 13 line 25-27).
Regarding claim 12, Botheroyd/Kawasaki discloses the fiber combiner of claim 9. Botheroyd further discloses the second portion of the plurality of input fibers and the third portion of the plurality of input fibers are each arranged in a fused bundle configuration (Column 13 lines 21-24. As interpreted in claim 9, the taper section (2) and waist section (2090) are considered to be two separate portions).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Botheroyd/Kawasaki discloses the fiber combiner of claim 9. Kawasaki further discloses the first and second taper portion have different taper ratios (Para. [0033] indicates the tapered portion have dynamic variable taper ratios that are not necessarily identical to each other at any given point, but rather depend on their specific position relative to the output fiber.) Kawasaki fails to disclose an adiabatic slope profile.
Botheroyd teaches an adiabatic taper. (Column 6 lines 46-48).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fiber combiner with an adiabatic slope profile of Botheroyd to include the second and different slope profile of Kawasaki in order to reduce insertion loss and manage fiber coupling efficiency across the entire length fiber combiner.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki (US20220413219A1) in view of Botheroyd (US989759B2).
Regarding claim 26, Kawasaki disclose a device of claim 21. Kawasaki further disclose a first (21B) and second(21D) tapered portion. Kawasaki fails to disclose a tapered capillary over the first and second portions.
PNG
media_image2.png
260
632
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Botheroyd discloses a fiber combiner (Figure 4) with a first portion (The first portion of the output end of Botheroyd is considered to be the portion comprising the fiber bundle 1002 within a capillary 41) comprising an outer capillary (41) and a second portion (The second portion of Botheroyd is characterized in figure 4 which illustrates a taper (2) defined from a first end (8) to a second end (10)) comprising an outer capillary (Figure 6. Capillary 64).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Kawasaki to incorporate the capillary structure taught by Botheroyd such that Kawasaki’s first and second portions comprise respective portions of a capillary, since Botheroyd teaches enclosing tapered fiber regions within a capillary to provide mechanical support and facilitate fabrication and alignment. Such a modification applies known capillary-based fiber combiner structures to Kawasaki’s device and would have yielded predictable results.
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki (US20220413219A1).
Regarding claim 23, Kawasaki discloses a third portion(21A) of the device that has a zero-slope profile (21A has an isodiametric portion after resin covering layer 21c is removed. Par. [0026]) along a third portion of the output end of the device, wherein the first (21B) and second portions (21D) are tapered compared to the third portion (Figure 2).
To the extent Kawasaki does not explicitly characterize portion 21A as having a “zero slope profile,” before the effective filling date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to recognize the isodiametric portion of 21A as exhibiting a zero-slope profile since the isodiametric region appears to maintain a constant cross-sectional dimension along its length.
Regarding claim 24, Kawasaki discloses a device of claim 21. Kawasaki further discloses a fourth portion(21C) of the device that has a zero-slope profile (Par. [0027] isodiametric portion), wherein the first portion is adjacent to the third portion, and the fourth portion is adjacent to the second portion. Kawasaki fails explicitly disclose the exact sequential arrangement of a zero-slope portion follow by two adiabatic portions, followed then by an additional zero slope portion. However, Kawasaki does disclose other embodiments in which is not mandatory to have isodiametric (zero slope) portions in between tapered(adiabatic) portions, and that variations in the configuration of these portions are contemplated ([Par. 0072]).
PNG
media_image3.png
368
802
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art looking to optimize the device for specific flow characteristics would have found it obvious to vary the sequence of isodiametric (zero-slope) and tapered (adiabatic) portion as describe in Kawasaki (Par. [0072]). The modification constitutes a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (different arrangements of tapered/ non-tapered sections) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botheroyd (US9897759B2) in view of Kawasaki (US20220413219A1), and in further view of Salokatve (US7991255B2).
Regarding claim 27, Botheroyd/ Kawasaki disclose the fiber combiner of claim 1. Botheroyd discloses a capillary (FIG. 4 Capillary 41). Botheroyd fails to disclose the tapered thickness of the third portion of the capillary is configured by etching the third portion of the capillary.
Kawasaki discloses four portions (See annotated FIG. 2).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fiber combiner of Botheroyd with the arrangement of Kawasaki to optimize light transmission and coupling efficiency.
Botheroyd/Kawasaki fails to discloses a capillary with tapered thickness.Salokatve teaches a capillary with tapered thickness (FIG. 5a. Column 5 lines 57-60).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art modify the a fiber combiner of Botheroyd/Kawasaki with the fiber tapered capillary of Salokatve to achieve precise dimensional control of the capillary, thereby optimizing light transmission, reducing optical losses, and maintaining proper structural support during fusion.
Regarding "etching" of claim 27... , Applicant is claiming the product including the process of making the fiber combiner, and therefore are of "product-by-process" nature. The courts have been holding for quite some time that: the determination of the patentability of product-by-process claim is based on the product itself rather than on the process by which the product is made. In re Thrope, 777 F. 2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985); and patentability of claim to a product does not rest merely on a difference in the method by which that product is made. Rather, it is the product itself which must be new and unobvious. Applicant has chosen to claim the invention in the product form.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure:
Liu et al. (CN108462028B) Figure 10.
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 TAJANAE N GREEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2188. The examiner can normally be reached Tues-Fri. 5:30a-3:30p.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/TAJANAE NICOLE GREEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights