DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
3. Claims 1-13 recite the limitations of “a measurement data acquisition unit”, “a physical quantity acquisition unit”, “a first amplitude spectrum conversion unit”, “a second amplitude spectrum conversion unit”, “a coefficient calculation unit”, “an input unit”, “a surface roughness spectrum calculation unit”, “a surface roughness calculation unit”, “a coefficient changing unit”, and “a storage unit”, etc., which have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because they use a generic placeholder, such as “an unit”, coupled with functional language but without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1-13 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 101 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
5. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the 2019 PEG (now been incorporated into MPEP 2106), the revised procedure for determining whether a claim is "directed to" a judicial exception requires a two-prong inquiry into whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.0S(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Claims 1-15 describe an abstract idea of assessing the surface roughness of a processed product from a physical quantity.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
A computation device, comprising:
L1: a measurement data acquisition unit configured to acquire measurement data measured by a surface roughness measurement device, the measurement data indicating a surface roughness of a workpiece machined by a machine tool;
L2: a physical quantity acquisition unit configured to acquire a physical quantity indicating a cause of occurrence of the surface roughness that, during machining by the machine tool, occurs in the workpiece depending on performance of the machine tool;
L3: a first amplitude spectrum conversion unit configured to perform frequency analysis on the measurement data and to convert the measurement data into a first amplitude spectrum;
L4: a second amplitude spectrum conversion unit configured to perform frequency analysis on the physical quantity and to convert the physical quantity into a second amplitude spectrum; and
L5: a coefficient calculation unit configured to calculate a coefficient that makes a result obtained by multiplying, by the coefficient, an amplitude value of the second amplitude spectrum at a specified frequency which is a predetermined frequency or a predetermined frequency band, equal, within a predetermined range, to an amplitude value of the first amplitude spectrum at the specified frequency, in order to predict the surface roughness of the workpiece from the physical quantity.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
The highlighted portion of the claim constitutes an abstract idea under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the additional elements are NOT sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions, as analyzed below:
1. Statutory Category ?
Yes.
Apparatus/System
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the combination of the claim limitations L3, L4 and L5 in the bolded portion listed above is directed to an algorithm of calculating a surface roughness of a workpiece in refernce to a selected physical quantity, which encompasses mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers.
That is, other than reciting “computation device” in the preamble, nothing in the claim precludes the recited limitations L3, L4 and L5 from practically being performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper.
Further, according to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes except for the mention of generic computer components performing computing activities via basic function of the computer, then the claim is likely considered to be directed to an ineligible abstract idea, as it essentially describes a mental process that could be performed by a human without the computer components adding any significant practical application beyond the abstract concept itself.
The bolded portion of claim 1 therefore falls within a combination of the “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Process” Groupings of abstract ideas defined by the 2019 PEG.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
The claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under the BRI, each or the combination of the claim limitations L1 and L2 reads on merely gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea.
The element of “a surface roughness measurement device” is recited at high level of generality. The claim does not specify any particular devices or sensors to perform the “measurement”. As such, claim 1 would monopolize the abstract idea across a wide range of applications.
The element of “a physical quantity indicating a cause of occurrence of the surface roughness that, during machining by the machine tool, occurs in the workpiece depending on performance of the machine tool” is also recited at high level of generality. It is not considered to be qualified for a significant or meaningful limitation that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. At most, it only generally links the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Moreover, the workpiece is not specified and neither is the machine tool. Thus, claim 1 would monopolize the algorithm across a wide range of applications.
In general, the claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, in all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the algorithm across a wide range of applications.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
See analysis given in 2A - Prong 2 above.
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims 2-13 inherit attributes of the independent claim 1, but do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. These claims merely extend (or narrow) the abstract idea which do not amount for "significantly more" because they merely add details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
In particular, the limitations of the “physical quantity” recited in claims 2, 5 and 11 are all considered "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field. Focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly, it is considered that the “core” of pending claims is directed to an abstract algorithm of calculating a surface roughness of a workpiece based on a designated physical quantity. The combination of claims 1 and 2 does not recite any additional element that amounts to “significantly more” or an “inventive concept” under the 2019 PEG (see also MPEP 2106.05). The claimed particulars of the “physical quantity” represent merely data characterization which can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of monitoring/analyzing surface roughness in the workpiece depending on the performance of the machine tool.
Claim 3 recites an input unit configured to receive a user input of a physical parameter which is to be used for calculating the surface roughness. Such a user input operation is considered "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field.
Claims 8 and 12 recite the limitations of “the machine tool”, which are all considered "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field. Focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly, it is considered that the “core” of pending claims is directed to an abstract algorithm of calculating a surface roughness of a workpiece based on a designated physical quantity. Instant claim 8 does not recite any additional element that amounts to “significantly more” or an “inventive concept” under the 2019 PEG (see also MPEP 2106.05). The claimed particulars of the “machine tool” can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of monitoring/analyzing surface roughness in the workpiece depending on the performance of a specific machine tool.
Claim 10 inherits attributes of the independent claim 1, which, under the BRI, cover performance of the limitations in the mind or using paper/pen but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 USC 101 for the same reasons as for claims 1-13 set forth above in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(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.
7. Claims 1, 4, 6, 10 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by ENOMOTO (JP 2018136149 A, machine translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, ENOMOTO discloses a computation device and a method for practicing the device, comprising: a measurement data acquisition unit (12 Fig. 1) configured to acquire measurement data measured by a surface roughness measurement device, the measurement data indicating a surface roughness of a workpiece machined by a machine tool (para. 0020: note, by inhrency, the measurement data includes the components of the surface roughness that are caused by the disturbance vibration transmitted to the workpiece); a physical quantity acquisition unit (14 Fig. 1) configured to acquire a physical quantity (i.e., the vibration data) indicating a cause of occurrence of the surface roughness (i.e., the components of the surface roughness caused by the vibration) that, during machining by the machine tool, occurs in the workpiece depending on performance of the machine tool (para. 0020); a first amplitude spectrum conversion unit (40 Fig. 2) configured to perform frequency analysis on the measurement data and to convert the measurement data into a first amplitude spectrum (para. 0031-0032); a second amplitude spectrum conversion unit (40 Fig. 2) configured to perform frequency analysis on the physical quantity and to convert the physical quantity into a second amplitude spectrum (para. 0031-0032); and a coefficient calculation unit (43 Fig. 2) configured to calculate a coefficient (e.g., the linear correlation coefficient (ρ); see para. 0054: note, calculation unit 43 calculates the correlation coefficient ρ in the spectrum domain) that makes a result (i.e., the vibration induced components of the surface roughness that are to be removed) obtained by multiplying, by the coefficient, an amplitude value of the second amplitude spectrum at a specified frequency (e.g., the effective frequency of the vibration data, see para. 0054, 0059) which is a predetermined frequency band, equal, within a predetermined range (associated with the correlation coefficient (ρ) that is higher than a predetermined value), to an amplitude value of the first amplitude spectrum at the specified frequency, in order to predict the surface roughness of the workpiece from the physical quantity (para. 0053-0054: “That is, the signal processing unit 46 performs processing to remove, from the surface roughness data, components obtained by multiplying the effective frequency of the vibration data by the correlation coefficient in the frequency domain transformed by the fast Fourier transformer 40”).
Regarding claim 4, ENOMOTO discloses: wherein the first amplitude spectrum conversion unit converts the measurement data into the first amplitude spectrum by way of frequency analysis which is based on a Fourier transform or a wavelet transform, and the second amplitude spectrum conversion unit converts the physical quantity into the second amplitude spectrum by way of frequency analysis which is based on a Fourier transform or a wavelet transform (para. 0031-0032).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, ENOMOTO discloses: a surface roughness spectrum calculation unit (43) configured to calculate a surface roughness amplitude spectrum indicating the surface roughness of the workpiece, by multiplying the coefficient and the amplitude value of the second amplitude spectrum at the specified frequency (para. 0053-0054); and a surface roughness calculation unit configured to calculate prediction data (e.g., the surface roughness data with the components related to the disturbance vibrationbeing removed) indicating the surface roughness of the workpiece, by inversely transforming the surface roughness amplitude spectrum (para. 0017, 0033-0034, 0043-0044).
Regarding claim 10, ENOMOTO discloses a surface roughness prediction system (Abstract; Figs. 1-2) equipped with the computation device according to claim 1, and a surface roughness prediction device (e.g., 10 Fig. 2) configured to predict the surface roughness of the workpiece machined by the machine tool using the specified frequency and the coefficient (see discussion of claim 6 above); the surface roughness prediction device comprising: a physical quantity (i.e., the vibration data) acquisition unit (14) configured to acquire a physical quantity indicating a cause of occurrence of the surface roughness that, during machining by the machine tool, occurs in the workpiece depending on the performance of the machine tool (see discussion of claim 1 above); an amplitude spectrum conversion unit (42) configured to perform frequency analysis on the physical quantity and to convert the physical quantity into an amplitude spectrum (see discussion of claim 1 above); a storage unit configured to store the coefficient and the specified frequency (by inherency, the system 10 must have a a storage unit configured to store the coefficient and the specified frequency so that further data processing can be performed); a surface roughness spectrum calculation unit (46) configured to calculate a surface roughness amplitude spectrum indicating the surface roughness of the workpiece, by multiplying an amplitude value of the amplitude spectrum at the specified frequency and the coefficient (see discussion of claim 1 above); and a surface roughness calculation unit configured to calculate prediction data (e.g., the surface roughness data with the components related to the disturbance vibrationbeing removed) indicating the surface roughness of the workpiece by inversely transforming the surface roughness amplitude spectrum (para. 0017, 0033-0034, 0043-0044).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 of this title, 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.
9. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ENOMOTO.
Regarding claim 2, ENOMOTO discloses: wherein the physical quantity is a positional deviation of a movable axis (e.g., stylus 32) configured to undergo movement during machining by the machine tool (para. 0027; see also para. 0050: “a dedicated
vibration detection sensor such as an acceleration sensor capable of measuring the vibration of the workpiece W may be applied”).
ENOMOTO does not mention explicitly: wherein the physical quantity further includes one of a temperature of the movable axis, a straightness of the movable axis, a fluid pressure or an air pressure in a bearing of the movable axis, a fluid temperature or an air temperature of the bearing, and a temperature of a cutting fluid used during machining.
Examiner takes official notice that physical quantities indicating a cause of surface roughness that occurs in a workpiece during machining the workpiece by a machine tool which physical quantities include one of a temperature of a movable axis, a straightness of the movable axis, a fluid pressure or an air pressure in a bearing of the movable axis, a fluid temperature or an air temperature of the bearing, and a temperature of a cutting fluid used during machining, as well as the various means/techniques of acquiring said physical quantities are all well known in the art. In view of ENOMOTO, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply ENOMOTO’s system/device to one of those well-known physical quantities to arrive the claimed invention. The skilled person in the art would conceive and apply such modification without needing inventive skill but depending on practical considerations and according to the dictates of the circumstances. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of such a modification were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See ENOMOTO, para. 0007-0010. See also KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
10. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ENOMOTO in view of Ito et al. (WO 2013031445 A1, machine translation).
Regarding claim 3, ENOMOTO discloses: wherein the coefficient calculation unit uses the predetermined frequency band as the specified frequency (i.e., the effective frequency of the vibration data, see para. 0054, 0059).
ENOMOTO does not mention explicitly: the predetermined frequency band is received from an input unit configured to receive an input operation of the frequency band made by an operator.
Ito discloses a surface roughness measuring device for microroughness of a wafer surface in semiconductor device manufacturing, comprising: an input unit configured to receive an input operation of a frequency band selected by an operator, wherein the received frequency band is used for evaluating the measurement data of the surface roughness (see discussion of Fig. 9: “In addition, the operator designates a spatial frequency region of interest. The signal processing system performs inverse Fourier transform in the spatial frequency domain using the spatial frequency spectrum at the position, and calculates the three-dimensional shape and the coordinates (X, Y, Z) of the three-dimensional shape.”).
Since ENOMOTO teaches the general condition of the effective frequency used for identifying the components of surface roughness of interest (para. 0054, 0059), in view of Ito, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ENOMOTO to designate a preferred frequency band of said effective frequency through a user input operation as taught by Ito. It has been held that setting a predetermined parameter via a user input is a common practice in the art. The mere application of a known technique to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious.
11. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ENOMOTO in view of UENISHI (US 20200073344 A1).
Regarding claim 12, ENOMOTO does not mention explicitly: wherein: the machine tool is an ultra-high precision machine tool configured to carry out machining with a resolution of less than or equal to 10 nanometers in accordance with a command having a command resolution of less than or equal to 10 nanometers; and the physical quantity acquisition unit of the surface roughness prediction device acquires the physical quantity detected at a time when the ultra-high precision machine tool is operating with no workpiece.
UENISHI discloses a system of identifying a vibration source resulting in defect in a machined surface of a workpiece (para. 0008) machined by an ultra-high precision machine tool configured to carry out machining (2 Fig. 4), comprising: a physical quantity acquisition unit configured to acquire the physical quantity (e.g., vibration time-series data of the table unit in the machine tool or vibration time-series data of a holder attached to a spindle of the machine tool) detected at a time when the ultra-high precision machine tool is operating with no workpiece (para. 0008-0009, 0029), wherein the acquired physical quantity indicates machining conditions in carrying out machining for the workpiece in the machine tool and serves as state data based on which an estimation estimates the machined surface measurement data (para. 0010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ENOMOTO to determine the impact of the basic state vibration of the machining tool on the occurrence of surface roughness of the workpiece as taught by UENISHI. Doing so would allow for more accurately identifying the main cause of the defect in the machined surface (UENISHI, para. 0004).
As to the rest of the limitation of claim 12. Examiner takes official notice that an ultra-high precision machine tool configured to carry out machining with a resolution of less than or equal to 10 nanometers in accordance with a command having a command resolution of less than or equal to 10 nanometers is well-known or common practice in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the combination of ENOMOTO and UENISHI to such an ultra-high precision machine tool to arrive the claimed invention as an intended use of the system taught by the ENOMOTO/UENISHI combination. It has been held that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Examiner’s Note
12. Claims 5, 7-9, 11 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and further overcome the rejections under 35 USC §101 and §112 as set forth in sections 2-5 above in this Office Action.
The primary reason for the allowance of claims 5 and 7 is the inclusion of the claimed limitations: the specified frequency comprises a plurality of specified frequencies that are predetermined corresponding respectively to the plurality of types of physical quantities, the plurality of specified frequencies have mutually different frequencies or mutually different frequency bands, and the coefficient comprises a plurality of coefficients, and in order to predict the surface roughness of the workpiece from the plurality of types of physical quantities, the coefficient calculation unit calculates the plurality of coefficients corresponding respectively to the plurality of specified frequencies, wherein a result obtained by multiplying an amplitude value of the second amplitude spectrum at each of the plurality of specified frequencies by a corresponding one of the coefficients, is equal, within a predetermined range, to an amplitude value of the first amplitude spectrum at that of the plurality of specified frequencies. It is these limitations as claimed in the combination recited in independent claim 1, that have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record which make claim 5 distinguish over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of claim 8 is the inclusion of the claimed limitations: after the coefficient has been calculated by the coefficient calculation unit, the surface roughness spectrum calculation unit calculates the surface roughness amplitude spectrum from the second amplitude spectrum that has been generated by the second amplitude spectrum conversion unit from the physical quantity detected at a time when the ultra-high precision machine tool is operating with no workpiece. It is these limitations as claimed in the combination recited in independent claim 1, that have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record which make claim 8 distinguish over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of claims 9 and 13 is the inclusion of the claimed limitations: a coefficient changing unit configured to receive an operation to change the coefficient made by an operator; wherein, in a case that the operator has changed the coefficient, the surface roughness spectrum calculation unit multiplies the amplitude value of the second amplitude spectrum at the specified frequency and the changed coefficient, and thereby calculates the surface roughness amplitude spectrum indicating the surface roughness of the workpiece. It is these limitations as claimed in the combination recited in independent claim 1 and/or 10, that have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record which make claims 9 and 13 distinguish over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of claim 11 is the inclusion of the claimed limitations: the specified frequency comprises a plurality of specified frequencies that are predetermined corresponding respectively to the plurality of types of physical quantities; the plurality of specified frequencies have mutually different frequencies or mutually different frequency bands; the coefficient comprises a plurality of coefficients that correspond respectively to the plurality of specified frequencies, and the storage unit stores the plurality of coefficients; and the surface roughness spectrum calculation unit calculates the surface roughness amplitude spectrum, by adding a plurality of spectra each obtained by multiplying the amplitude value of the amplitude spectrum at each of the plurality of specified frequencies and a corresponding one of the coefficients which correspond respectively to the plurality of the specified frequencies. It is these limitations as claimed in the combination recited in claims 1 and 10, that have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record which make claim 11 distinguish over the prior art.
Contact information
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUQIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2280. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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.
/X.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857