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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application on 12/02/2025 after final rejection of 09/18/2025 and advisory action of 11/21/2025. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/17/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 12-16, 19, and 21 are currently pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “conductive through hole” (claims 1, 9 and 16) and “the plurality of electrodes are connected to an external power supply through the conductive through hole” (claim 1), must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
Examiner’s Note: Applicant has attempted to obviate the aforementioned objection by inserting some additional text in the “S10” step of the flow chart on Fig. 3. This response is inadequate and does not constitute “show(ing) of every feature of the invention specified in the claims” as required in the objection. Amended drawings must depict detailed structure of all claimed components (not just some text), including “conductive through hole”, “plurality of electrodes”, “power supply”, etc. and interconnections therebetween.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 21 recites the limitations: “wherein the plurality of electrodes are energized when a volume ratio of the liquid metal injected into the accommodating cavity is larger than a preset proportion”.
The disclosure does not provide an adequate teaching how the aforementioned functionality is accomplished, i.e., there is no teaching of how said “energization” of the electrodes is actually accomplished (i.e., any sensors, circuitry, etc. ?). After considering all of the Wands factors (and specifically, that there is no adequate direction provided by the inventor/applicant, no existence of the working examples (as per the current record), etc., the Office has concluded that the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the instant disclosure will be high and undue to a person of the ordinary skill, and therefore, such a person will not be able to make and use the claimed invention without resorting to undue experimentation. See In re Brown, 477 F.2d 946, 177 USPQ 691 (CCPA 1973); In re Ghiron, 442 F.2d 985, 169 USPQ 723 (CCPA 1971).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 8-11, and 15-18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 103094227 A to Liu, Jing (hereafter “Liu”, cited in IDS) in view of US 7,477,123 to Beerling (cited in IDS), US 2006/0260919 to Aimi et al. (hereafter “Aimi”, cited in IDS), and US 3,609,620 to Lee (of record).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 16, Liu discloses (see English translation of record and Figs. 1-5) an electronic device (Figs. 1-3 and 5), comprising: a heat dissipation structure, the heat dissipation structure including: a substrate (1) provided with an electronic element (3); a heat dissipation cover/enclosure/module (2) (the vertical walls are the enclosure and the top horizontal wall is the module) hermetically connected to the substrate (1) and covering a periphery of the electronic element (3), wherein the heat dissipation cover and the substrate form an accommodating cavity for accommodating the electronic element, and the heat dissipation cover is provided with two sealed through holes (8, 9), (Figs. 5d-5f); and a liquid metal (5) filling the accommodating cavity.
Liu does not disclose: that an inner wall of the heat dissipation module of the heat dissipation cover is provided with a plurality of electrodes installed facing the electronic element and the substate, wherein during a period of the injecting/filling, energizing the plurality of electrodes, so that a current flows through the liquid metal to reduce surface tension of the liquid metal.
Beerling discloses (Figs. 1A-4C) method of using electrodes (135) and applying voltage to said electrodes while forming a liquid metal inductor (200) for the benefits of the enhanced wettability and reduced surface tension via electrowetting by a liquid metal (110) the surfaces of a channel (105) within a material layer (150), thus producing desired movement and distribution of the liquid metal (col. 4, l. 60 to col. 7, l. 17).
Furthermore, Aimi discloses a method of depositing liquid metal within a microswitch cavity, and specifically discloses (see specification par. ([0012]-[0040], Figs. 1-5) that the microswitch cavity is coupled to a fluid channel for providing a path along which liquid metal can be introduced and delivered to the microswitch cavity, the microswitch cavity also being coupled to a vent; at some locations along the fluid path, and indeed within the microswitch cavity itself, it may still be desirable to have localized regions that are wettable in order to enhance movement of the liquid metal at particular times (e.g., during liquid metal filling or during operation of the microswitch). Accordingly, certain locations may include wettable surface coatings and/or other device features (e.g., electrodes for electrowetting) to enhance wettability. The improved wetting effect depends on a number of factors, including the applied voltage (and thus the electrode configuration). Inclusion of various electrowetting electrodes
and insulated fluid channel surfaces may provide another (or at least complementary) technique for delivery of liquid metal into the microswitch cavity. Various different modes of voltage activation or electrode arrangement may similarly enable various liquid metal manipulation operations, such as basic delivery. Namely, Aimi discloses that the wettability of the liquid metal during filling can be improved and surface tension reduced by configuring the electrodes, thus producing desired distribution of the liquid metal (see specification par. ([0012]-[0040]).
Therefore, since inventions of Liu, Beerling, and Aimi are from the same field of endeavor and use techniques of filling cavities of electronic components with liquid metals, the approach suggested by Beerling and Aimi would be recognized in the invention of Liu.
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified to Liu in view of the combined teachings of Beerling and Aimi, by providing the inner wall of the heat dissipation module of the heat dissipation cover of Liu with a plurality of electrodes installed facing the electronic element and the substate, wherein during a period of the injecting/filling, energizing the plurality of electrodes, so that a current flows through the liquid metal to reduce surface tension of the liquid metal for the benefits of reduced surface tension, enhanced wettability and desired movement and distribution of the liquid metal (see col. 4, l. 60 to col. 7, l. 17) in Beerling and par. [0012]-[0040] in Aimi). Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Additionally, a proper positioning of the electrodes, including as claimed (i.e., on the inner wall of the heat dissipation cover facing the electronic element and the substrate), would have been also obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as an obvious design choice, in order to predictably achieve the most efficient and optimal reduction of the surface tension of the liquid metal, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention (i.e., of the electrodes) involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Furthermore, Liu-Beerling-Aimi combination does still not disclose that the heat dissipation cover is provided with a conductive through hole, and the plurality of electrodes are connected to an external power supply through the conductive through hole.
Lee discloses (Figs. 1 and 2) a cover (header) (11) for a sealed electrical device (switch) provided with conductive through holes, and the plurality of electrodes (12-14) are connected to an external power supply (via wires (18-20) through the conductive through holes for providing reliable electrical interconnections thereof while ensuring robust and consistent sealing (claim 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have impended external electrical connections to the electrodes of the Liu-Beerling-Aimi combination according to the teachings of Lee, so the heat dissipation cover is provided with a conductive through hole, and the plurality of electrodes are connected to an external power supply through the conductive through hole, in order to predictably provide reliable electrical interconnections thereof while ensuring robust and consistent sealing (claim 1 of Lee). Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Liu discloses that the sealing the through hole (8, 9) comprises: sealing the through hole by using a heat conducting material (Fig. 5(f), any material is inherently heat conducting, at least to some degree).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any known heat conducting material for sealing of said through holes in Liu, in order to enhance heat dissipating characteristics of the heat dissipation cover of Liu, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also, see KSR, supra.
Regarding claim 2, Liu as modified above does not explicitly disclose that a potential difference between any pair of adjacent electrodes among the plurality of electrodes ranges from 0.5 V to 2 V.
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any desired optimal potential difference between any pair of adjacent electrodes among the plurality of electrodes in Liu as modified above, in order to achieve desired liquid metal behavior during filling/injection process, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 5-7, 12-14, 19, and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu-Beerling-Aimi combination in view of the Applicant’s Admission Of Record (AAOR), or alternatively over Liu-Beerling-Aimi combination taken alone.
Regarding claims 5-7, 12-14, 19, and 20, Applicant admits on the record that various electrode designs and arrangements thereof is an obvious matter of design choice, i.e., “The different electrode arrangements shown in the various figures represent obvious design variations of the same technical solution, not separate inventions.” (see p. 5 of the Applicant Response of 5/9/2025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided designs and arrangements of the electrodes in Liu-Beerling-Aimi combination as recited in the aforementioned claims, in order to achieve desired liquid metal behavior during filling/injection process. Also, see KSR, supra.
Alternatively, providing desired number of the electrodes, desired shapes thereof, and desired size and arrangements thereof would have been also obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in order to achieve desired liquid metal behavior during filling/injection process, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device (i.e., of the electrodes) involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960; St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Also, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention (i.e., of the electrodes) involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Also, rational that a particular shape (i.e., of the electrodes) is a design choice may be found in legal precedent. See In re Dailey, 357 F. 2d669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Also, a change in size (i.e., of the electrodes) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim 21, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu-Beerling-Aimi-Lee combination in view of the US 3, 996, 801 to Playfoot et al. (hereafter “Playfoot”, of record).
Regarding claim 21, the Liu-Beerling-Aimi-Lee combination still does not disclose that the plurality of electrodes are energized when a volume ratio of the liquid metal injected into the accommodating cavity is larger than a preset proportion.
Playfoot teaches conventionality of the liquid metal level sensors (Fig. 1) for detecting level of the liquid metal level in an accommodating cavity (18) and generating an electrical signal to drive a level indicator (40).
Therefore, as best understood, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided such a liquid metal level sensor as taught by Playfoot in the Liu-Beerling-Aimi-Lee combination, in order to generate the electrical signal that is representative of the liquid metal level, in order to predictably use said signal to energize the plurality of electrodes when a volume ratio of the liquid metal injected into the accommodating cavity is larger than a preset proportion. By doing so it would be possible to save electrical energy and reduce unnecessary wear and tear of the components (e.g., electrodes, etc.), since the plurality of electrodes will not be unnecessary energized if there is not enough liquid metal in the accommodating cavity. Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, the Applicant contends that, allegedly, the “Application provides adequate support to enable a person skilled in the art for the claimed "wherein the plurality of electrodes are energized when a volume ratio of the liquid metal injected into the accommodating cavity is larger than a preset proportion." Non-limiting example descriptions can be found at least at [0150]-[0152] of the as-filed Specification.”
This is not the case. The aforementioned portions of the specification do not provide any teaching of how the aforementioned functionality is accomplished, i.e., there is no teaching of how said “energization” of the electrodes is actually accomplished (i.e., any sensors, circuitry, etc. ?). accordingly, the rejection is maintained as explained above in the body of the rejection.
Furthermore, regarding the art rejection, the Applicant contends that, allegedly, “Beerling does not disclose that its electrodes 135 are installed on an inner wall of the heat dissipation cover facing the electronic element and the substrate. Indeed, Beerling does not even contemplate heat dissipation.” Furter, the Applicant went on by alleging that “Aimi does not cure the deficiencies of Liu and Beerling. Similar to Beerling, Aimi relates to electrowetting applications for liquid metal manipulation in microswitch devices, not for heat dissipation […] Aimi does not disclose electrodes installed on an inner wall of a heat dissipation cover facing an electronic element and a substrate for heat dissipation purpose.” Furter, the Applicant went on by alleging that “Liu's asserted through holes 8 and 9 are in a part of the inner fence 2. However, the part of inner fence 2 does not have an inner wall on which a plurality of electrodes are installed.”
In response the Office would like to remind that the aforementioned Applicant's piecemeal analysis of the references cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Office clearly explained that Beerling discloses (Figs. 1A-4C) method of using electrodes (135) and applying voltage to said electrodes while forming a liquid metal inductor (200) for the benefits of the enhanced wettability and reduced surface tension via electrowetting by a liquid metal (110) the surfaces of a channel (105) within a material layer (150), thus producing desired movement and distribution of the liquid metal (col. 4, l. 60 to col. 7, l. 17).
Furthermore, Aimi discloses a method of depositing liquid metal within a microswitch cavity, and specifically discloses (see specification par. ([0012]-[0040], Figs. 1-5) that the microswitch cavity is coupled to a fluid channel for providing a path along which liquid metal can be introduced and delivered to the microswitch cavity, the microswitch cavity also being coupled to a vent; at some locations along the fluid path, and indeed within the microswitch cavity itself, it may still be desirable to have localized regions that are wettable in order to enhance movement of the liquid metal at particular times (e.g., during liquid metal filling or during operation of the microswitch). Accordingly, certain locations may include wettable surface coatings and/or other device features (e.g., electrodes for electrowetting) to enhance wettability. The improved wetting effect depends on a number of factors, including the applied voltage (and thus the electrode configuration). Inclusion of various electrowetting electrodes
and insulated fluid channel surfaces may provide another (or at least complementary) technique for delivery of liquid metal into the microswitch cavity. Various different modes of voltage activation or electrode arrangement may similarly enable various liquid metal manipulation operations, such as basic delivery. Namely, Aimi discloses that the wettability of the liquid metal during filling can be improved and surface tension reduced by configuring the electrodes, thus producing desired distribution of the liquid metal (see specification par. ([0012]-[0040]).
Therefore, since inventions of Liu, Beerling, and Aimi are from the same field of endeavor and use techniques of filling cavities of electronic components with liquid metals, the approach suggested by Beerling and Aimi would be recognized in the invention of Liu.
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified to Liu in view of the combined teachings of Beerling and Aimi, by providing the inner wall of the heat dissipation module of the heat dissipation cover of Liu with a plurality of electrodes installed facing the electronic element and the substate, wherein during a period of the injecting/filling, energizing the plurality of electrodes, so that a current flows through the liquid metal to reduce surface tension of the liquid metal for the benefits of reduced surface tension, enhanced wettability and desired movement and distribution of the liquid metal (see col. 4, l. 60 to col. 7, l. 17) in Beerling and par. [0012]-[0040] in Aimi). Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Accordingly, contrary to the Applicant’s position, a prima facie case of obviousness was clearly made in the rejection presented above.
Furthermore, the Office would like to remind the Applicant that “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”). The test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re McLaughlin, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). References are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosures. See In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA) 1969.
Furthermore, regarding the Lee reference, the Applicant contends that, allegedly, “Lee's header 11 is not a heat dissipation cover, and Lee's terminals are not electrodes installed on an inner wall of a heat dissipation module. Lee's terminals 13 and 14 are merely electrical connections for a heater 37 and auxiliary heater 50 in a switch assembly. See Lee, FIG. 1 (reproduced below)and 3:20-30. Moreover, Lee contains no discussion of liquid metal at all. So, Lee's asserted electrodes 12-14 are not electrodes that, when energized, cause "a current flows through the liquid metal to reduce surface tension of the liquid metal," as set forth in a mended claim 1.”
It appears that the Applicant misinterprets the rejection in view of Lee. The Lee was cited because of the teaching of only the concept of the conductive through holes, wherein the plurality of electrodes are connected to an external circuitry through said conductive through holes. Lee discloses (Figs. 1 and 2) a cover (header) (11) for a sealed electrical device (switch) provided with conductive through holes, and the plurality of electrodes (12-14) are connected to an external power supply (via wires (18-20) through the conductive through holes for providing reliable electrical interconnections thereof while ensuring robust and consistent sealing (claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have impended external electrical connections to the electrodes of the Liu-Beerling-Aimi combination according to the teachings of Lee, so the heat dissipation cover is provided with a conductive through hole, and the plurality of electrodes are connected to an external power supply through the conductive through hole, in order to predictably provide reliable electrical interconnections thereof while ensuring robust and consistent sealing, as explained above in the body of the rejection.
Again, the Office would like to reiterate that the Applicant's piecemeal analysis of the references cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Furthermore, it appears that the Applicant emphasized on numerous instances that the obviousness rejection was made “over cited four references”. In response, the Office directs the Applicant’s attention to the fact the number of references does not have a bearing on the propriety of the rejection; theoretically such could be infinite. Reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
In view of the above the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anatoly Vortman whose telephone number is (571)272-2047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, between 10 am and 8:30 pm.
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, Jayprakash N. Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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.
/ANATOLY VORTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835