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 amendments, filed 29 December 2025, with respect to the claims have been entered. Therefore, the rejections of claims 2-3, 8, and 11-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn. However, a new rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is made due to the amendments of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 29 December 2025, have been fully considered.
Regarding applicant’s argument, see pages 10-11, that Andersson fails to teach a wall-type irradiation field with a homogenous distribution of radiation intensity, Dictionary.com defines “wall” as “an immaterial or intangible barrier, obstruction, etc”; FIG. 2a of Andersson shows light 118 forming an immaterial barrier at the boundaries and doorways of room 202. Paragraph 0073 of Andersson further describes visible light irradiating the same area as the UV-C irradiation field to create “a visual light boundary”. Furthermore, the claims do not require a homogenous distribution of radiation intensity, nor does the specification provide support for a homogenous distribution of radiation intensity. In contrast, claim 1 recites that “the radiation collimated in each case…by the neighboring reflectors is directly adjacent and overlaps” (emphasis added). The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation includes a non-homogenous radiation distribution, i.e., where the irradiation field includes both portions which overlap between neighboring reflectors and non-overlapping portions which include only radiation from a single reflector.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-12, with respect to the rejections of the claims under Min and Hara have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Min or Hara.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, regarding a required intensity and contact time between a pathogen and the irradiation field, are not persuasive. The claims do not include any limitations requiring a particular magnitude of radiation intensity, nor a particular contact time between a pathogen and the irradiation field.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
“illuminants together with their associated reflectors”
“the neighboring reflectors”
“radiation collimated in each case within the diameter by the neighboring reflectors”
“the collimated radiation of the illuminants”
“the wall-like radiation field”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted the limitations as follows, respectively:
“illuminants together with their associated optical elements”
“optical elements”
“radiation collimated optical elements”
“the collimated radiation
“the wall-type irradiation field”
Claims 2-20 are rejected because of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3, 5, 9-13, 15-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0192710 A1), hereinafter Andersson, in view of Enomoto et al. (WO Patent No. 2016199804 A1), hereinafter Enomoto (English machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, Andersson discloses a lamp for forming (paragraph 0038) a wall-type irradiation field (FIG. 2a, irradiation field 118) as a barrier for pathogens in indoor air (paragraph 0033), comprising:
a plurality of UV-C (paragraph 0072) radiation-emitting illuminants (FIG. 1a, elements 104a, 104b), and
wherein the wall-type irradiation field is achieved by arranging the plurality of UV-C radiation emitting illuminants in such a way that the radiation is directly adjacent and overlaps and the totality of the collimated radiation of the illuminants thus generates the wall-like radiation field as a barrier for viruses (paragraph 0085).
Andersson fails to disclose a plurality of optical elements for collimating radiation emitted from the illuminants, wherein each of the optical elements is associated with each of the illuminants, an inner surface of each of the optical elements is rotationally symmetric about a symmetry axis thereof, the plurality of illuminants and the plurality of optical elements forming at least one group, and within the group, each of the radiations emitted from the illuminants and collimated by the optical elements has a radiation direction along the symmetry axis and situated in a shared plane, wherein the wall-type irradiation field is achieved by arranging the plurality of UV- C radiation emitting illuminants together with their associated reflectors, in a consecutive series, forming at least one row of illuminants, wherein the neighboring reflectors are arranged along a line.
However, Enomoto discloses a plurality of optical elements for collimating radiation emitted from the illuminants (page 8, paragraph beginning “FIG. 9 shows…”, lines 2-3), wherein each of the optical elements is associated with each of the illuminants (page 16, Ninth Embodiment paragraph 2),
an inner surface of each of the optical elements is rotationally symmetric about a symmetry axis thereof (page 17, paragraph beginning “The reflector block…”; FIG. 24A shows circular reflectors),
the plurality of illuminants and the plurality of optical elements forming at least one group (FIG. 28), and within the group, each of the radiations emitted from the illuminants and collimated by the optical elements has a radiation direction along the symmetry axis and situated in a shared plane (FIG. 17b),
wherein the wall-type irradiation field is achieved by arranging the plurality of UV-C radiation emitting illuminants together with their associated reflectors, in a consecutive series, forming at least one row of illuminants (page 16, Ninth Embodiment paragraph 1), wherein the neighboring reflectors are arranged along a line (page 16, Ninth Embodiment paragraph 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Andersson to include a plurality of optical elements for collimating radiation emitted from the illuminants, wherein each of the optical elements is associated with each of the illuminants, an inner surface of each of the optical elements is rotationally symmetric about a symmetry axis thereof, the plurality of illuminants and the plurality of optical elements forming at least one group, and within the group, each of the radiations emitted from the illuminants and collimated by the optical elements has a radiation direction along the symmetry axis and situated in a shared plane, wherein the wall-type irradiation field is achieved by arranging the plurality of UV- C radiation emitting illuminants together with their associated reflectors, in a consecutive series, forming at least one row of illuminants, wherein the neighboring reflectors are arranged along a line, based on the teachings of Enomoto that this produces a narrow beam with high intensity (Enomoto, page 18, paragraph beginning “From the simulation results…”).
Regarding claim 2, Andersson in view of Enomoto as applied to claim 1 discloses the lamp according to claim 1.
In addition, Enomoto discloses that the radiation directions of the radiation that is emitted by the illuminants and collimated by the optical elements within a group are parallel to one another (page 8, paragraph beginning “FIG. 9 shows…”, lines 2-3), or the radiation directions of assemblies within a group are parallel to one another, wherein an assembly includes multiple illuminants of a group together with their associated optical elements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Andersson in view of Enomoto to include that the radiation directions of the radiation that is emitted by the illuminants and collimated by the optical elements within a group are parallel to one another, or the radiation directions of assemblies within a group are parallel to one another, wherein an assembly includes multiple illuminants of a group together with their associated optical elements, based on the additional teachings of Enomoto that this produces a narrow beam with high intensity (Enomoto, page 18, paragraph beginning “From the simulation results…”).
Regarding claim 3, Andersson in view of Enomoto as applied to claim 1 discloses the lamp according to claim 1.
In addition, Enomoto discloses that each group includes multiple assemblies, wherein an assembly includes multiple illuminants of a group together with their associated optical elements (FIG. 28, assemblies 421).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Andersson in view of Enomoto to include that each group includes multiple assemblies, wherein an assembly includes multiple illuminants of a group together with their associated optical elements, based on the additional teachings of Enomoto that this arrangement produces a narrow beam with high intensity (Enomoto, page 18, paragraph beginning “From the simulation results…”).
Regarding claim 5, Andersson in view of Enomoto as applied to claim 1 discloses the lamp according to claim 1.
In addition, Andersson discloses that the illuminants are LEDs (paragraph 0061).
Regarding claim 9, Andersson in view of Enomoto as applied to claim 1 discloses the lamp according to claim 1.
In addition, Enomoto discloses that the lamp includes two groups that are situated symmetrically with respect to a center plane of the lamp (FIG. 28, the first group comprising elements 421a – 421e, the second group comprising elements 421f – 421j).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Andersson in view of Enomoto to include that the lamp includes two groups that are situated symmetrically with respect to a center plane of the lamp, based on the additional teachings of Enomoto that this arrangement produces a narrow beam with high intensity (Enomoto, page 18, paragraph beginning “From the simulation results…”).
Regarding claim 10, Andersson in view of Enomoto as applied to claim 1 discloses the lamp according to claim 1.
In addition, Andersson discloses that the lamp is designed as a light strip (paragraphs 0061-0063) for ceiling or wall mounting (paragraph 0106).
Regarding claim 11, Andersson in view of Enomoto as applied to claim 1 discloses the lamp according to claim 1.
In addition, Andersson discloses that the UV-C radiation that is collimated is far UV-C radiation having a wavelength in the range of 190-290 nm (paragraph 0034). This range is broader than the claimed range of 200-222 nm. However, optimizing the wavelength of irradiation is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Andersson teaches that “Ultraviolet light…may typically be classified into three wavelength ranges: UV-C, from about 190 nm to 290 nm…UV-C provides efficient prevention of bacteria” (Andersson, paragraphs 0034-0035). As such, Andersson identifies the wavelength of UV irradiation as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., wavelengths in the UV-C range destroy bacteria. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the wavelength of irradiation and identifies said wavelength as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the wavelength of irradiation to meet the claimed range since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 12, Andersson in view of Enomoto as applied to claim 1 discloses the lamp according to claim 1.
In addition, Andersson discloses that the UV-C radiation that is collimated is far UV-C radiation having a wavelength in the range of 190-290 nm (paragraph 0034). This range is broader than the claimed range of 223-280 nm. However, optimizing the wavelength of irradiation is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Andersson teaches that “Ultraviolet light…may typically be classified into three wavelength ranges: UV-C, from about 190 nm to 290 nm…UV-C provides efficient prevention of bacteria” (Andersson, paragraphs 0034-0035). As such, Andersson identifies the wavelength of UV irradiation as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., wavelengths in the UV-C range destroy bacteria. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the wavelength of irradiation and identifies said wavelength as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the wavelength of irradiation to meet the claimed range since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 13, Andersson in view of Enomoto as applied to claim 1 discloses the lamp according to claim 1.
In addition, Andersson discloses a system for preventing or minimizing the spread of pathogens in indoor air (paragraph 0033), including one or more radiation sources in the form of one or more lamps (paragraph 0038), wherein the system comprises a sensor system (FIG. 2b, element 106) for detecting a penetration of one or more persons or objects into a safety zone that is formed adjacent to the wall-type irradiation field (paragraph 0080), and a controller (FIG. 2b, element 107) that is designed to at least partially switch the one or more radiation sources on or off as a function of at least the presence of the person(s) and/or objects, the controller being designed to at least partially switch off the radiation source in question when the sensor system detects a penetration (paragraph 0081).
Regarding claim 19, Andersson in view of Enomoto as applied to claim 13 discloses the system according to claim 13.
In addition, Andersson discloses that the sensor system is configured to determine a penetration into the safety zone with spatial resolution (paragraph 0065), and the controller is configured to switch off at least one illuminant based on the location of the penetration (paragraph 0069).
Regarding claim 20, Andersson in view of Enomoto as applied to claim 1 discloses the lamp according to claim 1.
In addition, Andersson discloses a method for preventing or minimizing the spread of viruses in indoor air (paragraph 0033), using one or more radiation sources in a room (paragraph 0077), wherein the method includes generating at least one radiation field (FIG. 2b, element 118), using at least one lamp (FIG. 1a, elements 104a, 104b), and detecting a movement or a presence of one or more persons or objects in the room, and automatically switching at least a portion of the illuminants of one or more radiation sources on or off as a function of at least the presence of the person or object (paragraphs 0068-0069).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson in view of Enomoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsikos et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0034395 A1), hereinafter Tsikos.
Regarding claim 4, Andersson in view of Enomoto as applied to claim 1 discloses the lamp according to claim 1.
Anderson in view of Enomoto fails to disclose that the optical elements include a screening device for screening out divergent radiation components.
However, Tsikos discloses that the optical elements include a screening device (FIG. 84B, element 2954) for screening out divergent radiation components (paragraph 1955: UV radiation in the direction of aperture 2954 is transmitted through aperture 2954, while radiation which is not aligned with aperture 2954 is blocked by the edges of aperture 1954).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Andersson in view of Enomoto to include that the optical elements include a screening device for screening out divergent radiation components, based on the teachings of Tsikos that this results in a more powerful UV germicidal system (Tsikos, paragraphs 1955-1956).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson in view of Enomoto as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Raischein (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0102123 A1), hereinafter Raischein.
Regarding claim 6, Andersson in view of Enomoto as applied to claim 5 discloses the lamp according to claim 5.
Andersson in view of Enomoto fails to disclose that each illuminant is made up of at least two LED chips that are arranged in succession in the longitudinal direction of the lamp.
However, Raischein discloses that each illuminant is made up of at least two LED chips (FIG. 1, elements 101) that are arranged in succession in the longitudinal direction of the lamp (FIG. 1: the illuminant comprises a plurality of LED chips 101 arranged in a line along the longitudinal direction of lamp 100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Andersson in view of Enomoto to include that each illuminant is made up of at least two LED chips that are arranged in succession in the longitudinal direction of the lamp, based on the teachings of Raischein that this arrangement provides a more compact lamp with convenient placement of heat sinks (Raischein, paragraph 0034).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson in view of Enomoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishio (JP Patent No. 2006317801 A), hereinafter Nishio (English machine translation provided in a prior office action).
Regarding claim 7, Andersson in view of Enomoto as applied to claim 1 discloses the lamp according to claim 1.
Andersson in view of Enomoto fails to disclose that the illuminants of at least one group are divided into subgroups, and the illuminants of these subgroups may be jointly switched on and off, but independently of the illuminants of other subgroups.
However, Nishio discloses that the illuminants of at least one group are divided into subgroups, and the illuminants of these subgroups may be jointly switched on and off, but independently of the illuminants of other subgroups (page 9, last paragraph to page 10, first paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Andersson in view of Enomoto to include that the illuminants of at least one group are divided into subgroups, and the illuminants of these subgroups may be jointly switched on and off, but independently of the illuminants of other subgroups, based on the teachings of Nishio that this ability reduces the running cost of the system by allowing fewer lights to be powered on when not all lights are necessary (Nishio, page 10, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 8, Andersson in view of Enomoto and Nishio as applied to claim 7 discloses the lamp according to claim 7.
In addition, Nishio discloses that each subgroup corresponds to an assembly, wherein the assembly includes multiple illuminants of a group together with their associated optical elements (FIG. 8: the light-emitting elements 1, which are categorized into subgroups in FIG. 18, each have an associated optical element 9-1, i.e., the subgroups in FIG. 18 are assemblies including multiple illuminants together with their associated optical elements).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Andersson in view of Enomoto and Nishio to include that each subgroup corresponds to an assembly, wherein the assembly includes multiple illuminants of a group together with their associated optical elements, based on the additional teachings of Nishio that the optical elements of the assemblies further enhance the ability to achieve full luminance while reducing the number of lights which must be powered on (Nishio, page 6, paragraph 3).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson in view of Enomoto as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Trapani (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0282135 A1), hereinafter Trapani.
Regarding claim 14, Andersson in view of Enomoto as applied to claim 13 discloses the system according to claim 13.
Andersson in view of Enomoto fails to disclose freely movable stands for holding one or more radiation sources.
However, Trapani discloses freely movable stands for holding one or more radiation sources (FIG. 1 and paragraph 0025, lines 1-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Andersson in view of Enomoto to include freely movable stands for holding one or more radiation sources, based on the teachings of Trapani that this enables easy re-positioning of the radiation sources to more completely disinfect an area (Trapani, paragraph 0027).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson in view of Enomoto as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Zheng et al. (CN Patent No. 1548165 A), hereinafter Zheng (English machine translation provided in a prior office action).
Regarding claim 15, Andersson in view of Enomoto as applied to claim 13 discloses the system according to claim 13.
In addition, Andersson discloses that the one or more radiation sources are designed for arrangement along boundaries of room segments (FIG. 2b shows a segment 216 of room 202 illuminated with light 118, while another segment 214 of the room 202 is not illuminated; therefore, there must be radiation sources arranged along the boundary or edge of illuminated segment 216).
Andersson in view of Enomoto fails to disclose the controller being designed to activate the radiation sources in question when one or more persons are present in the room segment in question, and to deactivate at least one of the radiation sources when a person enters or leaves the room segment.
However, Zheng discloses the controller being designed to activate the radiation sources in question when one or more persons are present in the room segment in question (page 4, paragraph 1, lines 1-3), and to deactivate at least one of the radiation sources when a person enters or leaves the room segment (page 4, paragraph 1, lines 4-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Andersson in view of Enomoto to include the controller being designed to activate the radiation sources in question when one or more persons are present in the room segment in question, and to deactivate at least one of the radiation sources when a person enters or leaves the room segment, based on the teachings of Zheng that this saves energy by only requiring the germicidal light curtain to be formed when two people are present who may transmit airborne viruses, and turning the germicidal light curtain off when only one person is present (Zheng, page 4, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 16, Andersson in view of Enomoto and Zheng as applied to claim 15 discloses the system according to claim 15.
In addition, Andersson discloses that further radiation sources having a pathogen-deactivating or disinfecting effect are situated within the room segments, and the controller is designed to activate the further radiation sources when no person is present in the room segment (paragraph 0082).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson in view of Enomoto as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Baarman et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0313850 A1), hereinafter Baarman.
Regarding claim 17, Andersson in view of Enomoto as applied to claim 13 discloses the system according to claim 13.
Andersson in view of Enomoto fails to disclose that the sensor system includes a 3D camera or TOF camera and/or one or more CCD cameras.
However, Baarman discloses that the sensor system includes a 3D camera or TOF camera and/or one or more CCD cameras (paragraph 0147, lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Andersson in view of Enomoto to include that the sensor system includes a 3D camera or TOF camera and/or one or more CCD cameras, based on the teachings of Baarman that TOF sensors are advantageously capable of detecting multiple objects within a three dimensional space, meaning they are well suited for detecting in a wide range of situations (Baarman, paragraph 0147).
Regarding claim 18, Andersson in view of Enomoto as applied to claim 13 discloses the system according to claim 13.
Andersson in view of Enomoto fails to disclose that the sensor system includes at least one light source, and is configured to detect changes in the reflected portion of the light that is emitted by the light source and reflected from objects in a surrounding area.
However, Baarman discloses that the sensor system includes at least one light source (paragraph 0148), and is configured to detect changes in the reflected portion of the light that is emitted by the light source and reflected from objects in a surrounding area (paragraph 0150).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Andersson in view of Enomoto to include that the sensor system includes at least one light source, and is configured to detect changes in the reflected portion of the light that is emitted by the light source and reflected from objects in a surrounding area, based on the teachings of Baarman that this enhances the efficiency of the system by reducing delays between a person moving and the start of the germicidal irradiation process (Baarman, paragraph 0149).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. (CN Patent No. 204636770 U), hereinafter Wang (English machine translation provided), teaches a lamp for forming a wall-type irradiation field as a barrier for pathogens in indoor air.
Rosen et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,071,799 B2), hereinafter Rosen, teaches sterilizing far UV-C radiation having a wavelength in the range of 200 to 230 nm.
Roberts (WO Patent No. 2010115183 A1), hereinafter Roberts, teaches a sterilizing apparatus comprising a plurality of UVC LEDs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881