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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to the Amendment filed on 5/11/2026.
In the Instant Amendment, Claim(s) 1, 3 and 14 has/have been amended; Claim(s) 2 and 6-7 was/were cancelled; Claim(s) 15-22 has/have been added; Claim(s) 1 and 21-22 is/are independent claims. Claims 1, 3-5 and 8-22 have been examined and are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant is arguing that these features listed in the remarks (pages 8-11) are not disclosed by the cited references.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. The Examiner respectfully submits that the combination of Park and Lee does teach these features (please see below for details in the rejection section).
In the second paragraph on page 9, the Applicant is arguing that “Since Park's structure is configured to obtain differences in sensor output values using a relatively large displacement, sufficient position detection may be achieved merely by individually receiving and processing output signals of the Hall sensors. As a result, Park neither discloses nor suggests a technical necessity or motivation to directly connect output terminals having different polarities in order to implement common-mode noise reduction and minute signal amplification as claimed.”
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Park teaches individually receiving and processing output signals of the Hall sensors and obtaining differences in sensor output values (Fig. 6 and para. 0094 for obtaining differences in sensor output values f(C)=f(a)-f(b); Fig. 7 for obtaining differences in sensor output values f(C)=f(a)+f(b)). With teachings of figures 6-7, Park does disclose or suggest obtaining differences in sensor output values utilizing software configuration to obtain the differences which can be recognized as the equivalent to connecting the outputs of the two Hall sensors in series. However, Park is silent on connecting the outputs of the two Hall sensors in series utilizing the hardware configuration. This hardware configuration is taught by Lee as described in figure 6 to obtain differences in sensor output values for optimizing the number of sensor wirings in the FPCB between the sensors and the driver while enabling functional signals between components. Lee describes the reasons for connecting the outputs of the two Hall sensors in series on page 6, line 37 (“If output signals of Hall sensors that are disposed as a pair are individually received and processed, then the number of output signals are multiplied and the number of wirings in the FPCB are increased, thus increasing a width of the FPCB, changing a pin map of the FPCB, and complicating a control circuit for processing the output signals from the Hall sensors”). The hardware configuration in figure 6 of Lee with teaching on page 6, line 53 (“In another embodiment, the output terminals 2 and 4 of the second Hall sensors 112a and 112b may be serially connected. For example, the output terminals 2 and 4, whose polarities are opposite, may be connected to each other. In this case, the output signals Output+ and Output- are finally output from the second Hall sensors 112a and 112b, to be identical to when only one HALL sensor is used. For example, two output signals Output+ and Output- are achieved according to polarities, and thus, the design of the differential amplifier circuit 210 and the constant current circuit 220 is not required to be changed”) is equivalent to the hardware configuration in figure 16 of the Applicant. Thus, Lee does cure the deficiencies of Park.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the prima facies obviousness of the claimed invention has been established properly with all the claim limitations as claimed in claim 1 being taught or suggested by the combination as presented.
For the reason above, the Examiner respectfully submits that the combination of Park and Lee does teach these features as claimed in claim 1.
The remaining claims are also taught by the cited references as presented below.
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 3-5, 9-10, 12-14, 16 and 18-19 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the board part" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the second axis" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the first direction" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the first direction" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the first direction" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5, 10, 12-14, 16 and 18 are also rejected for being dependent of the base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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, 4, 8, 11, 15, 17, 19 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US 20200158793) in view of Lee et al (US 8320753 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches A camera actuator (Figs. 1-5) comprising:
a housing (110);
a rotation plate (130) disposed between the mover and the housing, and including a first support part and a second support part (balls 170’s) spaced apart from each other and aligned to define a first axis (Z-axis) (Figs. 4-6; paras. 0063-0066, 0071-0072);
a mover (120) that is disposed in the housing and includes an optical member (121); and
a driving part (coils 51, 52, 55; magnets 150-1, 150-2, 155) including a coil and a magnet that are configured to drive the mover to be tilted with respect to the first axis (Z-axis) (Figs. 4-7; paras. 0053-0062);
a sensor unit (hall sensors 160-1, 160-2) configured to detect a location of the mover by detecting a magnetic field of the magnet (Figs. 5-7); and
a controller electrically connected to the sensor unit (Figs. 2, 5, 8; paras. 0044-0046, 0101; operating driver 160/200),
wherein the magnet (magnets 150-1, 150-2, 155) includes a first magnet (150-1), a second magnet (150-2),
wherein the coil includes a first coil (51) disposed to face the first magnet (150-1) in a direction (X-axis) perpendicular to the first axis (Z-axis), and a second coil (52) disposed to face the second magnet (150-2) in the direction (X-axis) perpendicular to the first axis (Z-axis) (Figs. 4-7; paras. 0053-0062),
wherein the sensor unit (hall sensors 160-1 and 160-2 located on a left and right board parts of PCB 50, respectively) includes a first sensor unit configured to detect the first magnet and a second sensor unit configured to detect the second magnet (Figs. 5-7) and connect to the first sensor unit (Fig. 8; para. 0105),
wherein, when the mover (120) is tilted with respect to the first axis (Z-axis), a distance between the first sensor unit (160-1) and the first magnet (150-1) decreases, while a distance between the second sensor unit (160-2) and the second magnet (150-2) increases (Figs. 5-7; paras. 0068-0070),
wherein the (1-1)th detection signal output terminal is electrically connected to the controller,
but fails to teach
wherein the first sensor unit includes a (1-1)th detection signal output terminal having a positive (+) polarity and a (2-1)th detection signal output terminal having a negative (-) polarity,
wherein the second sensor unit includes a (1-2)th detection signal output terminal having a positive (+) polarity and a (2-2)th detection signal output terminal having a negative (-) polarity,
wherein the (1-1)th detection signal output terminal is electrically connected to the controller, the (2-1)th detection signal output terminal is electrically connected to the (1-2)th detection signal output terminal and the (2-2)th detection signal output terminal is electrically connected to the controller such that the controller acquires a differential signal of the first sensor unit and the second sensor unit.
However, in the same field of endeavor Lee teaches
wherein the first sensor unit includes a (1-1)th detection signal output terminal having a positive (+) polarity and a (2-1)th detection signal output terminal having a negative (-) polarity, wherein the second sensor unit includes a (1-2)th detection signal output terminal having a positive (+) polarity and a (2-2)th detection signal output terminal having a negative (-) polarity (Fig. 6; col. 6, lines 4-35; col. 6, lines 53-63; “In another embodiment, the output terminals 2 and 4 of the second Hall sensors 112a and 112b may be serially connected. For example, the output terminals 2 and 4, whose polarities are opposite, may be connected to each other”),
wherein the (1-1)th detection signal output terminal is electrically connected to the controller (Fig. 6; output+ path connecting terminal 2 of hall sensor 112b to controller 210), the (2-1)th detection signal output terminal is electrically connected to the (1-2)th detection signal output terminal (Fig. 6; col. 6, lines 4-35; col. 6, lines 53-63; a path formed by “the output terminals 2 and 4, whose polarities are opposite, may be connected to each other” connecting terminal 4 of hall sensor 112b [Park 160-1] to terminal 2 of hall sensor 112a [Park 160-2]) and the (2-2)th detection signal output terminal is electrically connected to the controller (Fig. 6; output+ path connecting terminal 4 of hall sensor 112a to controller 210) such that the controller acquires a differential signal of the first sensor unit and the second sensor unit (Fig. 6; col. 6, lines 4-35; col. 6, lines 53-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Lee in Park to have wherein the first sensor unit includes a (1-1)th detection signal output terminal having a positive (+) polarity and a (2-1)th detection signal output terminal having a negative (-) polarity, wherein the second sensor unit includes a (1-2)th detection signal output terminal having a positive (+) polarity and a (2-2)th detection signal output terminal having a negative (-) polarity, wherein the (1-1)th detection signal output terminal is electrically connected to the controller, the (2-1)th detection signal output terminal is electrically connected to the (1-2)th detection signal output terminal and the (2-2)th detection signal output terminal is electrically connected to the controller such that the controller acquires a differential signal of the first sensor unit and the second sensor unit for optimizing the number of sensor wirings in the FPCB between the sensors and the driver while enabling functional signals between components yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Park and Lee teaches everything as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Park teaches wherein the first sensor unit (160-1) and the second sensor unit (160-2) are spaced apart from each other in the first direction (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Park and Lee teaches everything as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Park teaches the driving part is configured to perform Optical Image Stabilization (OIS) through electromagnetic interactions between the first coil and the first magnet and between the second magnet and the second coil (Figs. 4-7; paras. 0053-0062).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Park and Lee teaches everything as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Park teaches wherein the second sensor unit (sensor 160-2 on the right board part in fig. 5) overlaps with the first sensor unit (sensor 160-1 on the left board part in fig. 5) in a first direction (X) (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Park and Lee teaches everything as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Lee teaches wherein the controller (210) includes a differential amplifier (AMP 210) configured to receive output signals from the first sensor unit and the second sensor unit (Fig. 6; col. 6, lines 4-35; col. 6, lines 53-63; “A positive output signal Output+ and a negative output signal Output- of the pair of the second Hall sensors 112a and 112b may be input to the differential amplifier circuit 210”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Lee in the combination to have wherein the controller includes a differential amplifier configured to receive output signals from the first sensor unit and the second sensor unit for acquiring proper signal levels for a shake correction operation performed via a feed-back control according to a difference signal between the target position and a current position of the optical device yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Park and Lee teaches everything as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Park teaches wherein the first sensor unit (160-1) and the second sensor unit (160-2) are arranged to be symmetrical to each other with respect to the first axis (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Park and Lee teaches everything as claimed in claim 17. In addition, Park teaches wherein the first sensor unit and the second sensor unit have a same height from a third housing side part in the first direction (Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 reciting features corresponding to claim 1 (without the feature of claim 1 on lines 4-5, i.e. “a rotation plate disposed between the mover and the housing, and including a first support part and a second support part spaced apart from each other and aligned to define a first axis;”) are also rejected for the same reasons as presented above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 reciting features corresponding to claim 1 (without the feature of claim 1 at the bottom on page 2, i.e. “wherein, when the mover is tilted with respect to the first axis, a distance between the first sensor unit and the first magnet decreases, while a distance between the second sensor unit and the second magnet increases”) are also rejected for the same reasons as presented above in claim 1.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 9-10, 12-14, 16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US 20200158793) in view of Lee et al (US 8320753 B2) as applied to claim 3 and further in view of Lim et al (US 20150055220 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Park and Lee teaches everything as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Park teaches wherein the board part (circuit board 50) includes:
a first board part in parallel to the first axis (Z-axis) (sensor 160-1 and coil 51 are on the left board part in fig. 5); and
a second board part disposed to be spaced apart from the first board part and in parallel to the first board (sensor 160-2 and coil 52 are on the right board part in fig. 5); and
a third board part connecting the first board and the second board and extended in a first direction in parallel to the second axis (Y-axis) (the middle board part connecting the left board part and the right board part shown in fig. 2), wherein the first sensor unit (160-1) and the first coil (51) are disposed on the first board part (Fig. 5),
but fails to teach
wherein the board part includes: a first path connecting the (1-1)th detection signal output terminal and the controller, a second path connecting the (2-1)th detection signal output terminal and the (1-2)th detection signal output terminal, and a third path connecting the (2-2)th detection signal output terminal and the controller, wherein the third path has an electrical length different from that of the first path.
However, in the same field of endeavor Lee teaches
wherein the board part (Park: Figs. 8, 2, 5; traces of PCB 50 connecting between hall sensors 160-1, 160-2… to controller 160/200) includes:
a first path connecting the (1-1)" detection signal output terminal and the controller (Lee: Fig. 6; output+ path connecting terminal 2 of hall sensor 112b to controller 210);
a second path connecting the (2-1)th detection signal output terminal and the (1-2)th detection signal output terminal (Lee: Fig. 6; col. 6, lines 4-35; col. 6, lines 53-63; a path formed by “the output terminals 2 and 4, whose polarities are opposite, may be connected to each other” connecting terminal 4 of hall sensor 112b [Park 160-1] to terminal 2 of hall sensor 112a [Park 160-2]); and
a third path connecting the (2-2)th detection signal output terminal and the controller (Lee: Fig. 6; output+ path connecting terminal 4 of hall sensor 112a to controller 210).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Lee in the combination to have wherein the board part includes: a first path connecting the (1-1)th detection signal output terminal and the controller, a second path connecting the (2-1)th detection signal output terminal and the (1-2)th detection signal output terminal, and a third path connecting the (2-2)th detection signal output terminal and the controller for optimizing the number of sensor wirings in the FPCB between the sensors and the driver while enabling functional signals between components yielding a predicted result.
Moreover, in the same field of endeavor Lim teaches
wherein the third path has an electrical length different from that of the first path (Lim: Fig. 6; paras. 0044, 0073-0075; “chip 30 may also be disposed inside the first coil 22, provided that the first hall sensor 25 is disposed above and below the driver IC 32” to dispose the driver IC 32 next to a hall sensor 25 on PCB 28; Park teaches multiple hall sensors [hall sensor 160-1, hall sensor 160-2] connect to a common “driver IC” 160/200; the driver IC is added to be next to hall sensor 160-2 in Park; Thus, because the hall sensor 160-1 and the hall sensor 160-2 are arranged in left and right board regions connected by a middle board region, the electrical paths from hall sensor 160-1 will pass from the left to the middle and to the right board regions to the common “driver IC” 160/200 near hall sensor 160-2; Because each hall sensor has two outputs 2 and 4 [by Lee], the path from output 2 of hall sensor 160-1 on the left board region in Park to the driver IC near hall sensor 160-2 on the right board region in Park would be longer than the path from output 4 of hall sensor 160-2 to the driver IC located near the hall sensor 160-2 on the right board region).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Lim in the combination to have wherein the third path has an electrical length different from that of the first path for providing a driver IC mounted next to a hall sensor and a coil for optimizing space of control circuit yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Park, Lee and Lim teaches everything as claimed in claim 3. In addition, Park teaches wherein the mover (120) is disposed between the first board part and the second board part (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Park, Lee and Lim teaches everything as claimed in claim 3. In addition, Park teaches wherein the housing includes:
a first housing side part; and a second housing side part disposed to be spaced apart from the first housing side part in the first direction, the first board part is in contact with the first housing side part, and wherein the second board part is in contact with the second housing side part (Figs. 2-5).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Park, Lee and Lim teaches everything as claimed in claim 9. In addition, Park teaches wherein the first housing side part includes a first housing hole (at 51), wherein the first housing side part includes a first housing hole (at 52), wherein any one of the first coil and the first magnet is disposed in the first housing hole, and wherein any one of the second coil and the second magnet is disposed in the second housing hole (Figs. 2-5).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Park, Lee and Lim teaches everything as claimed in claim 3. In addition, Lim teaches
wherein the controller (driver IC 32) is disposed in any one of the first board part and the second board part (Fig. 6; paras. 0044, 0073-0075; “chip 30 may also be disposed inside the first coil 22, provided that the first hall sensor 25 is disposed above and below the driver IC 32” to dispose the driver IC next to a hall sensor where Park already teaches a hall sensor located on a first/second board part and “driver IC” 160/200 receives signals from all hall sensors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Lim in the combination to have wherein the controller is disposed in any one of the first board part and the second board part for providing a driver IC to be mounted next to a hall sensor and a coil for optimizing space of control circuit yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Park, Lee and Lim teaches everything as claimed in claim 3. In addition, the combination of Park and Lee teaches
wherein the second path passes through the first board part, the second board part, and the third board part (Lee: Fig. 6; col. 6, lines 4-35; col. 6, lines 53-63; a path formed by “the output terminals 2 and 4, whose polarities are opposite, may be connected to each other” connecting terminal 4 of hall sensor 112b [Park 160-1] to terminal 2 of hall sensor 112a [Park 160-2]; Park: figs. 2, 5: because the hall sensor 160-1 and the hall sensor 160-2 are arranged in left and right board regions connected by a middle board region, the path will pass through the three board regions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by the combination of Park and Lee in the combination to have wherein the second path passes through the first board part, the second board part, and the third board part for optimizing the number of sensor wirings in the FPCB between the sensors and the driver while enabling functional signals between components yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Park, Lee and Lim teaches everything as claimed in claim 3. In addition, Park teaches
wherein the second sensor unit and the second coil are disposed on the second board part (sensor 160-2 and coil 52 are on the right board part in fig. 5).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Park, Lee and Lim teaches everything as claimed in claim 3. In addition, Lim teaches wherein the electrical length of the third path is smaller than the electrical length of the first path (Lim: Fig. 6; paras. 0044, 0073-0075; “chip 30 may also be disposed inside the first coil 22, provided that the first hall sensor 25 is disposed above and below the driver IC 32” to dispose the driver IC 32 next to a hall sensor 25 on PCB 28; Park teaches multiple hall sensors [hall sensor 160-1, hall sensor 160-2] connect to a common “driver IC” 160/200; the driver IC is added to be next to hall sensor 160-2 in Park; Thus, because the hall sensor 160-1 and the hall sensor 160-2 are arranged in left and right board regions connected by a middle board region, the electrical paths from hall sensor 160-1 will pass from the left to the middle and to the right board regions to the common “driver IC” 160/200 near hall sensor 160-2; Because each hall sensor has two outputs 2 and 4 [by Lee], the path from output 4 of hall sensor 160-2 located closer to the driver IC on the right board region in Park would be shorter than the path from output 2 of the hall sensor 160-1 on the left board region located further to the driver IC on the right board region).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Lim in the combination to have wherein the electrical length of the third path is smaller than the electrical length of the first path for providing a driver IC mounted next to a hall sensor and a coil for optimizing space of control circuit yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Park, Lee and Lim teaches everything as claimed in claim 3. In addition, Park teaches wherein the second sensor unit (160-2) and the second coil (52) are arranged on the second board part (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Park and Lee teaches everything as claimed in claim 1, but fails to teach
wherein the first sensor unit is located inside the first coil, and the second sensor unit is located inside the second coil (Park: figs. 4-5; Hall sensors 160-1, 160-2 located outside coils 51, 52).
However, in the same field of endeavor Lim teaches
wherein the first sensor unit is located inside the first coil, and the second sensor unit is located inside the second coil (Figs. 1, 3, 5; para. 0044: “hall sensor 25 may be disposed on an inner side of a winding of the first coil 22 to sense a magnetic flux change of the first magnet 24”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Lim in the combination to have wherein the first sensor unit is located inside the first coil, and the second sensor unit is located inside the second coil for positioning position sensor so that opposing coil surface with respect to its magnet can be optimized yielding a predicted result.
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 Quan Pham whose telephone number is (571)272-4438. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-7pm.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at (571) 272-7564. 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.
/Quan Pham/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Prosecution Insights