OUTDETAILED 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
Examiner acknowledges amending of the specification and claims 1, 5, 12, 16-19, cancellation of claims 32-33, and addition of new claims 34-35. Specification objections withdrawn. Claim 16-19 objections withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues Iwa in view of Murry does not adequately disclose independent claims 1 + 12. Applicant contends that dye lasers/lasers using fluorescent substances as the light-emitting material are not found in modern optical communications systems due to an alleged unacceptable amount of degradation of the fluorescent substances. Applicant further notes that the secondary reference, Murry, does not disclose a specific voltage range (Remarks pgs. 12-13).
Examiner disagrees. First, Iwa explicitly states that the disclosed laser can be used as a light source for optical communications (Iwa 0002). Second, Murry is irrelevant with regard to the voltage range limitation and is used only to modify the type of laser. The voltage range is taught via a combination of Iwa, MPEP 2144.05 I, and MPEP 2144.05 III A (See claim 1 + 12 rejections). All pending elected claims are rejected.
Claim Interpretation
“Low voltage” is adequately defined and interpreted to mean a voltage less than 5 V (instant application Specification 0038).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 12, 14-16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki/hereinafter ”Iwa” (US-20010019565-A1) in view of Murry (US-6735224-B2).
“2” and “4” in claim rejections should be interpreted as the central electron source 2 (of the five shown in Iwa fig. 7) and the central light emitter 4 (of the five shown in Iwa fig. 7), respectively, unless otherwise noted. However, “2+14+13” should be interpreted as ALL FIVE 2s + 14 + 13.
Regarding claim 1, Iwa discloses a system for generating optical signals (fig. 7, 0002), comprising: a laser configured to emit an optical signal (fig. 7 laser 3 (combo 4(central)+5+6) emits optical signal 300, 0036, 0006 (same “300” for fig. 7)); and an electron emission device operatively coupled to the laser and comprising an electron source (fig. 7 electron emitter 2+14+13 operatively coupled to 3 and comprising electron source 2, 0041), wherein, upon activation of the electron emission device, the electron source is configured to emit a stream of electrons (fig. 7 activating 2+14+13 causes 2 to emit electron beam 200, 0006 (same “200” for fig. 7)), wherein the laser is configured to receive the stream of electrons from the electron emission device (fig. 7, 3 receives 200 from 2, 0040), and wherein the laser is configured to emit an optical signal in response to receipt of the stream of electrons (fig. 7, 3 emits 300 in response to receiving 200, 0040).
Iwa does not disclose the lasers being VCSELs.
Murry discloses a VCSEL driven by driver circuitry and also discloses ability to pump VCSEL using electron beam (fig. 12 1210 driven by 1232, col. 1 lines 55-65, col. 34 lines 50-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use VCSELs as the lasers due to the VCSEL’s low threshold current, circular beam profile, smaller divergence angle, and scalability (Murry col. 2 lines 45-55).
Using VCSEL as laser would allow for lower electron source voltage to be used.
Modified Iwa does not explicitly disclose the electron emission device operating at a low voltage by applying a voltage not exceeding five volts.
Iwa discloses the electron emission device operating at a voltage between 10 V and 100 kV (0038, or “low voltage” “10 to 100 V” 0043) and a desire to minimize voltage (0010, 0017) + device use as light source for optical communications (0002).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP 2144.05 I). ("[A] modification of a process parameter may be patentable if it ‘produce[s] a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art." (citing Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs, UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 693, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ("A difference of degree is not as persuasive as a difference in kind – i.e., if the range produces ‘a new property dissimilar to the known property,’ rather than producing a predictable result but to an unexpected extent.") (MPEP 2144.05 III A). Applicant has not demonstrated criticality of claimed range over prior art range, nor have they presented a new and unexpected result as a consequence of the claimed range which is different in kind from the results of the prior art range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the Iwa electron emission device + overall system suitable for low voltage operation from Iwa fig. 7 elem. 7 + apply less than five volts to improve efficiency of device/reduce power consumption (Iwa 0017). Using VCSEL as laser from previous modification would allow for this lower voltage to be used.
Regarding claim 2, modified Iwa discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the VCSEL is one of a plurality of VCSELs (fig. 7, center 2 is one of a plurality of 2s (five)), wherein the low voltage electron emission device comprises an array of electron sources (fig. 7, 2+14+13 comprises array of 2s (all five)), and wherein each electron source is configured to be operatively coupled to one VCSEL from the plurality of VCSELs (fig. 7 each of the five 2s in array configured to be operatively coupled to one 3 from plurality of five 3s, 0040,0041).
Regarding claim 4, modified Iwa discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the electron source comprises a carbon nanotube (0037 lines 9-13).
Regarding claim 5, modified Iwa discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the low voltage electron emission device is operatively coupled to a direct current (DC) power source (fig. 7, 2+14+13 operatively coupled to power source 7, 0038), and wherein the DC power source is configured to apply the voltage of less than five volts to the low voltage electron emission device to generate the stream of electrons (fig. 7, 7 configured to apply less than 5 V, see claim 1 rejection/modification).
Regarding claim 7, modified Iwa discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the activation of the low voltage electron emission device causes an electrical field to be applied around the electron source, causing the electron source to emit electrons (fig. 7, activation of 2+14+13 causes Efield (between 2 and 3) applied around 2, causing 2 to emit electrons 200, 0036 final 4 lines).
Regarding claim 8, modified Iwa discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the low voltage electron emission device further comprises a gate configured to control the electron-beam (fig. 7, 2+14+13 comprises gate/control electrode 13 configured to control 200, 0038, 0041).
Modified Iwa does not explicitly disclose the gate/control electrode collimating the electron-beam.
def. collimate – to make parallel (Merriam-Webster)
Iwa discloses a desire to focus beam + increase device/emission efficiency (0012, 0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the gate/control electrode 13 to maximally collimate the electron beam to direct more of the electron beam towards the VCSEL input and increase device efficiency (Iwa 0012, 0038).
Additionally, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Collimation of the electron beam is not inventive over the prior art as it simply optimizes known device/structure towards achieving a goal disclosed within the prior art (more parallel beams [Wingdings font/0xE0] more beam directed towards VCSEL [Wingdings font/0xE0] increased efficiency) (MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Regarding claim 9, modified Iwa discloses the system of Claim 8, wherein the VCSEL comprises an input end and an emission end (annotated fig. 7 VCSEL 3 w/ central 4 comprises input IE and emission EE), wherein the gate is further configured to direct the electron beam into the input end of the VCSEL and wherein the optical signal is emitted from the emission end of the VCSEL (annotated fig. 7, 13 directs 200 into IE of 3 and 300 emitted from EE of 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
487
803
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 7
Regarding claim 12, Iwa discloses a method of generating an optical signal (fig. 7, 0002), comprising the steps of: activating an electron emission device (fig. 7 activating 2+14+13, 0040 first half, 0041), wherein the electron emission device comprises an electron source (fig. 7, 2+14+13 comprises 2); causing the electron source to emit a stream of electrons (fig. 7, 2 emits 200, 0006, 0040,0041); and directing the stream of electrons into a laser (fig. 7, 200 into 3, 0040,0041), wherein the laser is operatively coupled to the electron emission device (fig. 7, 3 operatively coupled to 2+14+13, 0040,0041), wherein the laser is configured to emit an optical signal in response to receipt of the stream of electrons (fig. 7, 3 emits 300 in response to 200, 0006,0040-0041).
Iwa does not disclose the lasers being VCSELs.
Murry discloses a VCSEL driven by driver circuitry and also discloses ability to pump VCSEL using electron beam (fig. 12 1210 driven by 1232, col. 1 lines 55-65, col. 34 lines 50-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use VCSELs as the lasers due to the VCSEL’s low threshold current, circular beam profile, smaller divergence angle, and scalability (Murry col. 2 lines 45-55).
Using VCSEL as laser would allow for lower electron source voltage to be used.
Modified Iwa does not explicitly disclose the electron emission device operating at a low voltage + applying a voltage not exceeding five volts.
Iwa discloses the electron emission device operating at a voltage between 10 V and 100 kV (0038, or “low voltage” “10 to 100 V” 0043) and a desire to minimize voltage (0010, 0017) + device use as light source for optical communications (0002).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). ("[A] modification of a process parameter may be patentable if it ‘produce[s] a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art." (citing Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs, UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 693, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ("A difference of degree is not as persuasive as a difference in kind – i.e., if the range produces ‘a new property dissimilar to the known property,’ rather than producing a predictable result but to an unexpected extent.") (MPEP 2144.05). Applicant has not demonstrated criticality of claimed range over prior art range, nor have they presented a new and unexpected result as a consequence of the claimed range which is different in kind from the results of the prior art range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the Iwa electron emission device + overall system suitable for low voltage operation from Iwa fig. 7 elem. 7 + apply less than five volts to improve efficiency of device/reduce power consumption (Iwa 0017). Using VCSEL as laser from previous modification would allow for this lower voltage to be used.
Regarding claim 14, modified Iwa discloses the method of Claim 12, wherein the VCSEL is one of a plurality of VCSELs ((fig. 7, center 2 is one of a plurality of 2s (five)), wherein the low voltage electron emission device comprises an array of electron sources (fig. 7, 2+14+13 comprises array of 2s (all five)), and wherein each electron source is configured to be operatively coupled to one VCSEL from the plurality of VCSELs (fig. 7 each of the five 2s in array configured to be operatively coupled to one 3 from plurality of five 3s, 0040,0041).
Regarding claim 15, modified Iwa discloses the method of Claim 12, wherein the electron source comprises a carbon nanotube (0037 lines 9-13).
Regarding claim 16, modified Iwa discloses the method of Claim 12, wherein activating the low voltage electron emission device further comprises applying a voltage in the range of less than five volts of direct current (DC) power to the low voltage electron emission device (fig. 7, 7 configured to apply less than 5 V to 2+14+13, see claim 1 rejection/modification, 0038).
Regarding claim 18, modified Iwa discloses the method of Claim 12, wherein activating the low voltage electron emission device causes an electrical field to be applied around the electronic source, causing the electron source to emit electrons (fig. 7, activation of 2+14+13 causes Efield (between 2 and 3) applied around 2, causing 2 to emit electrons 200, 0036 final 4 lines).
Regarding claim 19, modified Iwa discloses the method of Claim 12, further comprising directing, via a gate, the stream of electrons into an electron beam (fig. 7, 2+14+13 comprises gate/control electrode 13 configured to direct 200 into beam, 0038, 0041).
Modified Iwa does not explicitly disclose the gate/control electrode collimating the electron-beam.
def. collimate – to make parallel (Merriam-Webster)
Iwa discloses a desire to focus beam + increase device/emission efficiency (0012, 0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the gate/control electrode 13 to maximally collimate the electron beam to direct more of the electron beam towards the VCSEL input and increase device efficiency (Iwa 0012, 0038).
Additionally, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Collimation of the electron beam is not inventive over the prior art as it simply optimizes known device/structure towards achieving a goal disclosed within the prior art (more parallel beams [Wingdings font/0xE0] more beam directed towards VCSEL [Wingdings font/0xE0] increased efficiency) (MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Regarding claim 20, modified Iwa discloses the method of Claim 19, wherein the VCSEL comprises an input end and an emission end (annotated fig. 7 VCSEL 3 w/ central 4 comprises input IE and emission EE), the method further comprising the step of directing the electron beam into the input end of the VCSEL, wherein the optical signal is emitted from the emission end of the VCSEL (annotated fig. 7, 200 directed into IE of 3 and 300 emitted from EE of 3).
Claim(s) 3, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwa in view of Murry and Yamaguchi (US-20130322484-A1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Iwa discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the VCSEL is one of a plurality of VCSELs (fig. 7, VCSEL 3 ((central)4+5+6) is one of plurality of 3s (5+6+the other 4s)).
Modified Iwa does not disclose wherein the low voltage electron emission device comprises a plurality of ring-shaped arrays of electron sources, and wherein each ring-shaped array is configured to be operatively coupled to one VCSEL from the plurality of VCSELs.
Yamaguchi discloses an electron-beam-pumped light source with a ring-shaped array of electron beam sources used to pump a semiconductor light-emitting device (fig. 9a/b, four electron beam sources (four dark quarter-circles 30, see fig. 7b for correct labelling of 30) in ring-shaped array used to pump 20, 0099-0104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a plurality of ring-shaped arrays of electron sources, wherein each ring-shaped array is configured to be operatively coupled to one VCSEL from the plurality of VCSELs to improve uniformity of incident electron beams (Yamaguchi 0104).
Regarding claim 13, modified Iwa discloses the method of Claim 12, wherein the VCSEL is one of a plurality of VCSELs (fig. 7, VCSEL 3 ((central)4+5+6) is one of plurality of 3s (5+6+the other 4s)).
Modified Iwa does not disclose wherein the low voltage electron emission device comprises a plurality of ring-shaped arrays of electron sources, and wherein each ring-shaped array is configured to be operatively coupled to one VCSEL from the plurality of VCSELs.
Yamaguchi discloses an electron-beam-pumped light source with a ring-shaped array of electron beam sources used to pump a semiconductor light-emitting device (fig. 9a/b, four electron beam sources (four dark quarter-circles 30, see fig. 7b for correct labelling of 30) in ring-shaped array used to pump 20, 0099-0104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a plurality of ring-shaped arrays of electron sources, wherein each ring-shaped array is configured to be operatively coupled to one VCSEL from the plurality of VCSELs to improve uniformity of incident electron beams on each VCSEL (Yamaguchi 0104).
Claim(s) 6, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwa in view of Murry and Molva (NPL Appl. Phys. Lett. 62, 796-798 (1993), “Molva_NPL” cited and included herewith).
Regarding claim 6, modified Iwa discloses the system of Claim 1.
Modified Iwa does not disclose wherein the electron source comprises a metallic tip.
Iwa discloses using a Spindt type electric-field emission device as the electron source (0037 lines 1-9). Additionally, Iwa discloses an embodiment using a Spindt type emission device (0086) and includes an outside reference to (Molva) a laser pumped with Spindt type emission device beam (0007).
Molva discloses a microgun-pumped semiconductor laser with an electron source comprising a metallic tip (fig. 1a/b MICROTIP, pg. 796/pg. 2 Abstract + left col. bottom par. “The microtips (Mo, Nb, or Si) are deposited on a conductive cathode…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a Spindt type electric-field emission device with metallic microtips as the electron source to take advantage of the small size, increased efficiency, and constructional flexibility of the Spindt array (Iwa 0037). Metallic microtips also provide narrower electron source beam.
Regarding claim 17, modified Iwa discloses the method of Claim 12.
Modified Iwa does not disclose wherein the electron source comprises a metallic tip.
Iwa discloses using a Spindt type electric-field emission device as the electron source (0037 lines 1-9). Additionally, Iwa discloses an embodiment using a Spindt type emission device (0086) and includes an outside reference to (Molva) a laser pumped with Spindt type emission device beam (0007).
Molva discloses a microgun-pumped semiconductor laser with an electron source comprising a metallic tip (fig. 1a/b MICROTIP, pg. 796/pg. 2 Abstract + left col. bottom par. “The microtips (Mo, Nb, or Si) are deposited on a conductive cathode…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a Spindt type electric-field emission device with metallic microtips as the electron source to take advantage of the small size, increased efficiency, and constructional flexibility of the Spindt array (Iwa 0037). Metallic microtips also provide narrower electron source beam.
Claim(s) 11, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwa in view of Murry and Scarlett (US-10394525-B2).
Regarding claim 11, modified Iwa discloses the system of Claim 1.
Modified Iwa does not disclose further comprising a processor operatively coupled to the low voltage electron emission device, wherein the processor is configured to determine a random output value based on a measurement of an initial random value obtained from at least one of the stream of electrons or the optical signal.
Scarlett discloses a quantum-optical random number generator with a photodetector + processor configured to determine a random output value based on a measurement of an initial random value obtained from an optical signal (figs. 1,5,6 photodetector 114 receives beam with random energy and sends to processor 116 to convert to random number, col. 7 line 10 – col. 8 line 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a processor (and all of the other necessary randomization elements from Scarlett fig. 1, 5, or 6) operatively coupled to the low voltage electron emission device, wherein the processor is configured to determine a random output value based on a measurement of an initial random value obtained from at least one of the stream of electrons or the optical signal to provide true random number generating functionality to the device in Iwa (Scarlett col. 11 lines 30-40).
Regarding claim 22, modified Iwa discloses the method of Claim 12.
Modified Iwa does not disclose further comprising the steps of: receiving, via a processor, a measurement of an initial random value obtained from at least one of the stream of electrons or the optical signal; and determining, via the processor, a random output value based on the initial random value.
Scarlett discloses a quantum-optical random number generator with a photodetector + processor configured to determine a random output value based on a measurement of an initial random value obtained from an optical signal (figs. 1,5,6 photodetector 114/212 receives beam with random energy and sends to processor 116/214 to convert to random number, col. 7 line 10 – col. 8 line 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive, via a processor (and all of the other necessary randomization elements from Scarlett fig. 1, 5, or 6), a measurement of an initial random value obtained from at least one of the stream of electrons or the optical signal; and determining, via the processor, a random output value based on the initial random value to provide true random number generating functionality to the device in Iwa (Scarlett col. 11 lines 30-40).
Claim(s) 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwa in view of Murry and Ghosh (US-20170256915-A1).
Regarding claim 34, modified Iwa discloses the system of Claim 1.
Modified Iwa does not disclose wherein the optical signal comprises a bandwidth of at least 70 GHz.
Ghosh discloses a high-speed VCSEL device (> 100 GHz, > 1 THz) and a desire to operate VCSEL devices at high bandwidths (Abstract, 0002-0003, 0027, 0065).
It is well known to optimize values within disclosed ranges to achieve desired results (MPEP 2144.05 I/II). Applicant has not demonstrated criticality of claimed range (> 70 GHz) over prior art range, nor have they presented a new and unexpected result as a consequence of the claimed range which is different in kind from the results of the prior art range (MPEP 2144.05 III A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the optical signal comprises a bandwidth of at least 70 GHz to satisfy the increasing demand for higher-speed digital communications + broaden applications (Ghosh 0002).
Regarding claim 35, modified Iwa discloses the method of Claim 12.
Modified Iwa does not disclose wherein the optical signal comprises a bandwidth of at least 70 GHz.
Ghosh discloses a high-speed VCSEL device (> 100 GHz, > 1 THz) and a desire to operate VCSEL devices at high bandwidths (Abstract, 0002-0003, 0027, 0065).
It is well known to optimize values within disclosed ranges to achieve desired results (MPEP 2144.05 I/II). Applicant has not demonstrated criticality of claimed range (> 70 GHz) over prior art range, nor have they presented a new and unexpected result as a consequence of the claimed range which is different in kind from the results of the prior art range (MPEP 2144.05 III A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the optical signal comprises a bandwidth of at least 70 GHz to satisfy the increasing demand for higher-speed digital communications + broaden applications (Ghosh 0002).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10, 21 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art of record does not disclose gate being further configured to operate as an external cavity resonator (claims 10, 21)
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 Alex Ehrlich whose telephone number is (703)756-5716. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at (571) 272-1835. 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.
/A.E./Examiner, Art Unit 2828
/MINSUN O HARVEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2828