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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
DETAILED ACTION
This is an AIA application filed December 28, 2022.
The earliest effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as December 28, 2022, the actual filing date, there being no earlier priority applications.
The present application is also related to the applications giving rise to the following patent publication(s):
none are seen.
The claims filed June 29, 2026 are entered, currently outstanding, and subject to examination.
This action is in response to the information disclosure statement/IDS filing of August 28, 2026.
The current status and history of the claims are summarized below:
Last Amendment/Response
Previously
Amended:
1-8, 10, 11, & 17-20
N/A
Cancelled:
9 & 12-16
N/A
Withdrawn:
none
N/A
Added:
21-26
N/A
Claims 1-8, 10, 11, and 17-26 are currently pending and outstanding.
Regarding the last reply:
Claims 1-8, 10, 11, and 17-20 were amended.
Claims 9 and 12-16 were cancelled.
No claims were withdrawn.
Claims 21-26 were added.
Claims 1-8, 10, 11, and 17-26 are currently outstanding and subject to examination.
This is a final action and is the second action on the merits.
Allowable subject matter is indicated below.
Often, in the substance of the action below, formal matters are addressed first, claim rejections second, and any response to arguments third.
Specification
Applicant must provide the same terminology/vocabulary/phrasing in the specification that is present in the claims. At least one term or phrase is missing from the specification present in the claim(s).
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
Correction is required as the following amendment(s)/text in the claims find(s) no antecedent in the specification.
Claim(s)
Antecedent Missing For
4 & 22
"transmitting surface is within a cavity"
4 & 22
"underfill is absent from the cavity"
As set forth in MPEP § 608.01(o):
The meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import; and in mechanical cases, it should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies. A term used in the claims may be given a special meaning in the description. See MPEP § 2111.01 and § 2173.05(a).
Usually the terminology of the original claims follows the nomenclature of the specification, but sometimes in amending the claims or in adding new claims, new terms are introduced that do not appear in the specification. The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
. . . While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure [sic, ensure] certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification, Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm’r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP §§ 608.01(i), § 1302.01.
Consequently, identity between terms and phrases in the specification and claims is preferred and is seen as mandatory to ensure “certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification”.
Further, under 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(e) regarding disclosure consistency:
The disclosure must be amended, when required by the Office, to correct inaccuracies of description and definition, and to secure substantial correspondence between the claims, the remainder of the specification, and the drawings.
Examiner considers direct correspondence between the specification and the claims to be important with respect to determining the scope of the claims.
Examiner strongly urges Applicant to review its claims with a fine-toothed comb and scrutinize them for any discrepancies between claim language and language that is used in the written description/specification as originally filed. Applicant is responsible for what it drafts. Discrepancies may be interpreted to Applicant’s detriment.
Ownership Statement Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)C is Accepted
Applicant’s ownership statement on page 6 of the Reply of June 29, 2026 is accepted.
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given their plain meaning. MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01.
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring those to the attention of the examiner and the prosecution history with its next response in a manner both specific and particular. In doing so, there will be no mistake, confusion, and/or ambiguity as to what constitutes the special definition(s).
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20150362673 of Zheng et al. (Zheng).
With respect to claim 1, Zheng discloses an apparatus (Fig. 7, system 700 that includes two instances of PIC 710, such as PIC 100 (FIG. 1), PIC 300 (FIG. 3) or PIC 500 (FIG. 5)), comprising:
a photonic die (upper PIC 710-1) coupled to a glass substrate (in association with lower PIC 710-2, ¶ 51 re glass substrates for PICs); and
a turning mirror assembly (¶ 55, mirror facet) between the photonic die (upper PIC) and the glass substrate (lower PIC);
wherein a transmitting surface of the turning mirror assembly is parallel to a corresponding surface of the glass substrate (per Fig. 7 and the horizontal surface of the lower waveguide where the optical signal travels to the upper facet mirror. The signal is seen to travel from left to right.), and
the transmitting surface is separated from the corresponding surface by agas filled space (the space between the top surfaces 712).
With respect to claim 17, Zheng as set forth above discloses a method, comprising:
coupling a turning mirror within a cavity in a photonic die;
coupling the photonic die to a surface of a glass substrate; and
spacing the turning mirror apart from the glass substrate,
such that a transmitting surface of the turning mirror is parallel to a corresponding surface of the glass substrate, and
the transmitting surface is separated from the corresponding surface.
The method of claim 17 above would naturally occur in the construction and/or manufacture of a device as set forth in claim 1, above.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng as set forth above.
With respect to claim 11, Zheng as set forth above discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further but not one comprising:
an electronic die (¶ 50, VLSI circuit) coupled to the glass substrate (lower PIC) and in communication with the photonic die (as a part of the system per ¶ 50);
Zheng as set forth above does not disclose:
an optical fiber to receive optical signals from the turning mirror assembly and/or an antenna coupled to the electronic die.
Zheng, ¶ 6 provides for optical fibers for silicon photonics.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use optical fibers to transmit/receive/transceiver optical signals along the lines of ¶ 6 in a system according to Zheng as set forth above in order to communicate optical signals. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), prior art elements (listed above) are combined according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a photonic integrated circuit/PIC) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
an optical fiber to receive optical signals from the turning mirror assembly and/or an antenna coupled to the electronic die.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng as set forth above in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0217326 of Brusberg (Brusberg).
With respect to claim 2, Zheng as set forth above discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but not one wherein
the glass substrate comprises one or more through glass vias filled with metallic conductors.
Brusberg discloses a glass waveguide assemblies for OE-PCBS and methods of forming OE-PCBS that includes (Fig. 2A):
¶ 55, "The glass waveguide assembly 50 can also include one or more OE-PCB features or components 110 to facilitate the use of the glass waveguide assembly in forming an OE-PCB, as described below. Example OE-PCB features or components 110 include conducting (e.g., metal-filled) vias, . . . .” This passage is seen to disclose a glass substrate that includes one or more through glass vias filled with a metallic conductor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use metallic conductors in vias of glass along the lines of Brusberg in a system according to Liu as set forth above in order to provide electrical connection to other components. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a photonic integrated circuit/PIC) would occur. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
the glass substrate comprises one or more through glass vias filled with metallic conductors.
Claims 5-8 and 18-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng as set forth above in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20250054929 of Epitaux et al. (Epitaux).
With respect to claim 5, Zheng as set forth above discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but not one further comprising
a polymeric seal around a periphery of the transmitting surface and between the transmitting surface and the corresponding surface to define the gas filled space.
Epitaux, Fig. 7, provides a sealing adhesive 304 to provide an enclosed volume 306. Sealing material 414 (Fig. 10, ¶ 66) may be an epoxy, which is a polymer, and is seen as applicable as the adhesive 304 in Fig. 7.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a polymeric seal to provide an enclosed volume along the lines of Epitaux in a system according to Liu as set forth above in order to ensure optical signal integrity in hostile environments. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a photonic integrated circuit/PIC) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
a polymeric seal around a periphery of the transmitting surface and between the transmitting surface and the corresponding surface to define the gas filled space.
With respect to claim 6, Zheng in view of Epitaux as set forth above discloses the apparatus of claim 5, but not one wherein
the transmitting surface is within a cavity in the glass substrate.
Per Zheng Fig. 7.
Zheng as set forth above does not disclose:
the polymeric seal is within a cavity in the glass substrate.
Epitaux Fig. 7 shows polymeric seal within the cavity shown there.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a polymeric seal in a cavity along the lines of Epitaux in a system according to Zheng in view of Epitaux as set forth above in order to provide a protected-by-cavity seal structure. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), prior art elements (listed above) are combined according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a photonic integrated circuit/PIC) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
wherein the transmitting surface and the polymeric seal are within a cavity in the glass substrate.
With respect to claim 7, Zheng in view of Epitaux as set forth above discloses the apparatus of claim 5, including one wherein
the transmitting surface (Fig. 7, top surface of lower PIC) is between the photonic die and the glass substrate, and
the polymeric seal (Epitaux 304 Fig. 7) abuts an underfill (raised ring 206) between the photonic die and the glass substrate.
With respect to claim 8, Zheng in view of Epitaux as set forth above discloses the apparatus of claim 5, but not one wherein
the polymeric seal comprises silicone or polyurethane.
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment.). MPEP § 2144.07.
Consequently, the recitation of specific materials (here, silicone or polyurethane) is seen as obvious. Herein, this analysis is referred to as “specific materials”.
With respect to claim 18, Zheng in view of Epitaux as set forth above discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising forming a polymeric seal around a periphery of the transmitting surface to enclose agas filled space between the transmitting surface and the corresponding surface.
The method of claim 18 above would naturally occur in the construction and/or manufacture of a device as set forth in claim 7, above.
With respect to claim 19, Zheng in view of Epitaux as set forth above discloses the method of claim 18, further comprising:
forming a cavity within the glass substrate;
and locating the transmitting surface within the cavity in the glass substrate.
The method of claim 19 above would naturally occur in the construction and/or manufacture of a device as set forth in claim 5, above.
With respect to claim 20, Zheng in view of Epitaux as set forth above discloses the method of claim 19, including one further comprising
applying an underfill epoxy between the photonic die and the glass substrate,
wherein the cavity channels the underfill epoxy around the cavity to keep the underfill epoxy out of the cavity.
Per claim 7, above, and the legs protecting the enclosed space of Epitaux Fig. 7 that exclude sealing material 304.
With respect to claim 21, Zheng in view of Epitaux as set forth above discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a photonic die coupled to a glass substrate; and
a turning mirror assembly at least partially between the photonic die and the glass substrate,
wherein a transmitting surface of the turning mirror assembly is parallel to a corresponding surface of the glass substrate, and
the transmitting surface is separated from the corresponding surface of the glass substrate by a gas filled space defined at least partially by an underfill between the photonic die and the glass substrate.
Per claim 7, above.
With respect to claim 22, Zheng in view of Epitaux as set forth above discloses the apparatus of claim 21, including one wherein
the transmitting surface is within a cavity in the glass substrate.
Per claim 1/ Fig. 7 of Zheng.
Zheng in view of Epitaux as set forth above does not disclose:
and the underfill is absent from the cavity.
Epitaux discloses an optical engine for high-speed data transmission that includes underfill for use in optical systems. Fig. 7, ¶ 54, optically transparent underfill 302. As can be seen by visual inspection thereof, the underfill is absent from the cavity.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide underfill between discrete components along the lines of Epitaux in a system according to Liu as set forth above in order to provide mechanical stability with optical transparency. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a photonic integrated circuit/PIC) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
and the underfill is absent from the cavity.
With respect to claim 23, Zheng in view of Epitaux as set forth above discloses the apparatus of claim 21, including one further comprising
a polymeric seal around a periphery of the transmitting surface and between the transmitting surface and the corresponding surface to define the gas filled space.
Per claim 5, above.
With respect to claim 24, Zheng in view of Epitaux as set forth above discloses the apparatus of claim 23, including one wherein
the transmitting surface and the polymeric seal are within a cavity in the glass substrate.
Per claim 6, above.
With respect to claim 25, Zheng in view of Epitaux as set forth above discloses the apparatus of claim 23, including one wherein
the transmitting surface is between the photonic die and the glass substrate, and
the polymeric seal abuts the underfill.
Per claim 7, above.
With respect to claim 26, Zheng in view of Epitaux as set forth above discloses the apparatus of claim 21, including one further comprising:
an electronic die coupled to the glass substrate and in communication with the photonic die; and
an optical fiber to receive optical signals from the turning mirror assembly and/or an antenna coupled to the electronic die.
Per claim 11, above.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng as set forth above and further in view of Brusberg and Epitaux both as set forth above.
With respect to claim 3, Zheng as set forth above discloses the apparatus of claim 2, but not one further comprising:
one or more metal connections between the photonic die and the metallic conductors; and
an underfill between the photonic die and the glass substrate.
Epitaux provides conductive traces per ¶ 35 and provides an underfill between the photonic die and the glass substrate per claim 7, above.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to traces/metal connections along the lines of Brusberg in a system according to Zheng in view of Brusberg and Epitaux as set forth above in order to provide electrical communication. This provides one rationale to combine the references. Similarly, an underfill according to Epitaux would provide insulation and/or mechanical support.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), prior art elements (listed above) are combined according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a photonic integrated circuit/PIC) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
one or more metal connections between the photonic die and the metallic conductors; and
an underfill between the photonic die and the glass substrate.
With respect to claim 4, Zheng in view of Brusberg and Epitaux as set forth above discloses the apparatus of claim 3, including one wherein
the transmitting surface is within a cavity in the glass substrate and the underfill is absent from the cavity.
Per claim 22, above.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng as set forth above in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230084003 of Taha et al. (Taha).
With respect to claim 10, Zheng as set forth above discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but not one further comprising
an anti-reflective coating on the transmitting surface and the corresponding surface.
Taha discloses an optical coupling that includes:
an anti-reflective coating on the transmitting surface and the corresponding surface
Figs. 7A and 39, ¶¶ 165 and 254, respectively.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use anti-reflective coatings along the lines of Taha in a system according to Zheng as set forth above in order to match indices of refraction and preserve optical signal by reducing reflections and enhancing transmission. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), prior art elements (listed above) are combined according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a photonic integrated circuit/PIC) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
an anti-reflective coating on the transmitting surface and the corresponding surface
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 29, 2026 with respect to the outstanding claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection as different art is now applied to the rejected claims in light of Applicant’s amendment(s).
Applicant's arguments with regards to the remaining claims all rely upon the arguments set forth above. Consequently, these remaining arguments as seen as being addressed by the examiner's corresponding remarks.
Applicant’s remaining arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. As such, the examiner makes no remarks regarding them.
Conclusion
Applicant’s publication US 20240219659 A1 published July 4, 2024 was previously cited.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references have elements related to Applicant’s disclosure and/or claims or are otherwise associated with the other cited references, particularly with respect to related photonic devices and the like.
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JORDAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1571. The examiner can normally be reached most days 1000-1800 PACIFIC TIME ZONE (messages are returned).
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. While examiner does not examine over the phone (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.2), examiner is glad to clarify or discuss issues so long as it forwards prosecution.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas (Tom) HOLLWEG can be reached at (571) 270-1739. 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.
/Andrew Jordan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
V: (571) 270-1571 (Pacific time)
F: (571) 270-2571
September 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights