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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
3. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In particular, claim 9 recites, in part, a limitation to “compare the length of the reflected beam to a target beam length.” The bolded term for “length” as recited features improper antecedent basis. The present claim does not introduce it. It is also not introduced in independent claim 1, from which the present claim depends. On this basis, the term is vague and indefinite, and hence the limitation and claim are rendered vague and indefinite accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7. Claims 1-8 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Non-Patent Literature “Co-designing a scalable quantum computer with trapped atomic ions” (“Brown”) in view of Non-Patent Literature “Active stabilization of a Michelson interferometer at an arbitrary phase with subnanometer resolution” (“Grassani”).
Regarding claim 1, BROWN teaches A quantum information processing (QIP) system (Abstract and introduction, as found on page 1, discussing the development of quantum computer/computing platforms, e.g., such that the involved ions as trapped and managed are controlled “to perform the desired calculations, simulations or quantum circuit” (page 5, 2nd column, bottom paragraph)) comprising:
a cryostat (FIG. 4, as shown on page 5, and also “cyrogenic vacuum chamber” to reduce ion/qubit collision (page 2, 1st column, top paragraph), and discussion of closed-cycle cryostat / cryogenic technology (page 6, 1st column, 2nd paragraph under the heading Compact lasers and vacuum system technology)) comprising:
a positioning system comprising a movable element/component configured to reposition one or more components coupled to the movable element/component (stabilization of inferometer optical path length as discussed on page 4’s 1st column (“For hyperfine atomic qubits, the optical path length of this interferometer need only be stabilised to well within the wavelength corresponding to the qubit frequency difference (~mm).”) and again on page 6’s 1st column under the heading for Compact lasers and vacuum system technology (“Traditionally, a significant effort is dedicated to laser stabilisation, with individual optical components on an optical table utilising long optical path lengths. Such a large footprint invariably drifts because of environmental changes (temperature, humidity, air pressure and so on), and requires constant adjustments to keep the system operational.”), where the Examiner understands the stabilizing adjustments to be physical/mechanical adjustments to the laser and optical system assembly as discussed by the reference under the same heading);
a viewport aligned with at least a portion of the positioning system (page 6’s 1st column discussing that the “sealed cover ... assembled in a UHV environment” (as shown in Figure 4 on page 5) provides “optical access necessary to operate an ion trap” essentially as a quantum processor);
an interferometer sensor aligned with the viewport and configured to measure a displacement of the movable element/component (page 4’s 1st column (“For hyperfine atomic qubits, the optical path length of this interferometer need only be stabilised to well within the wavelength corresponding to the qubit frequency difference (~mm).”)); and
a controller configured to: receive information indicative of the measured displacement of the movable element/component from the interferometer sensor; and generate a repositioning signal configured to adjust the movable element/component based on the information indicative of the measured displacement (the tunable laser systems that are part of the ion trap quantum computer as taught, which are understood to require constant adjustments such that the system at large remains operational, as discussed in page 6’s 1st column under the heading for Compact lasers and vacuum system technology, and where a controller of some kind is necessarily involved to regulate the physical/mechanical positioning/calibration that is taught as necessary for the system’s functionality).
Brown does not teach in its entirety the limitation for (and rather, the Examiner relies upon GRASSANI to teach what Brown lacks):
Limitation: a nanopositioning system comprising a movable platform configured to reposition one or more components coupled to the movable platform.
Grassani teaches, with its Fig. 1 on page 2531, an interferometer setup that is described to feature a mirror element that is movable in a y direction to control the optical path difference between two ends of the assembly. See, e.g., page 2530’s 2nd column, 2nd full paragraph. It stands to reason that the mirror movable as described is tethered to something, e.g. an arm as described in the aforementioned paragraph, that is equivalent to a “platform” as recited. Moreover, the reference’s Abstract and 1st paragraph (page 2530) as well as discussion in the second-to-last paragraph (page 2532) all make clear the necessity for the positioning to be nanopositioning as recited.
Limitation: a viewport aligned with at least a portion of the nanopositioning system.
See the discussion per Grassani, as provided just above.
Limitation: an interferometer sensor aligned with the viewport and configured to measure a displacement of the movable platform.
See the discussion per Grassani, as provided just above.
Limitation: a controller configured to: receive information indicative of the measured displacement of the movable platform from the interferometer sensor; and generate a repositioning signal configured to adjust the movable platform based on the information indicative of the measured displacement.
See the discussion per Grassani, as provided just above. But also regarding the limitation’s mention of a controller to receive displacement feedback to further calibrate positioning, see Grassani’s discussion of an error function used to evaluate and effect stabilization, as found on page 2531 (specifically, beginning with the 1st column’s 1st full paragraph).
Brown and Grassani both relate to frameworks that involve the use of interferometer readings to stabilize quantum applications in the state of the art. Hence, the aforementioned references are similarly directed and therefore analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate specific Grassani’s assembly (Fig. 1(a)) into a framework such as Brown’s to provide some of the detailed arrangement/assembly details that Brown addresses at only a high level, thereby providing a more full and comprehensive teaching of an interferometer per Grassani as used to stabilize optical path length as Brown contemplates.
Regarding claim 2, Brown in view of Grassani teach the QIP system of claim 1, as discussed above. The aforementioned references teach the additional limitation wherein the movable platform is displaced in a displacement direction and wherein a field of view of the viewport is orthogonal to the displacement direction (Grassani’s page 2530, 2nd column discussing its Fig. 1(a), such that the mirror M1 with its arm are capable of displaced positioning in the y direction relative to the other arm, and as shown in Fig. 1(a) on page 2531, this y direction movement would be orthogonal to the view of the CCD camera). The motivation for combining the references is as discussed above in relation to claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Brown in view of Grassani teach the QIP system of claim 2, as discussed above. The aforementioned references teach the additional limitation wherein the interferometer sensor is not configured to measure the displacement of the movable platform in at least one direction orthogonal to the displacement direction (Grassani’s page 2530, 2nd column discussing its Fig. 1(a), where the measured displacement is in the y direction which is orthogonal, and not any other direction (as the claim recites)). The motivation for combining the references is as discussed above in relation to claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Brown in view of Grassani teach the QIP system of claim 2, as discussed above. The aforementioned references teach the additional limitation wherein the displacement direction is a vertical direction relative to an orientation of the cryostat (Grassani’s page 2530, 2nd column discussing its Fig. 1(a), where the measured displacement is in the y direction relative to the orientation of the mirror/lens assembly of the bottom arm, which the Examiner believes would be housed inside the UHV enclosure as shown in Brown’s Figure 4 per its page 5). The motivation for combining the references is as discussed above in relation to claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Brown in view of Grassani teach the QIP system of claim 4, as discussed above. The aforementioned references teach the additional limitation wherein the interferometer sensor is insensitive to displacements of the movable platform in a horizontal direction that is orthogonal to the vertical direction (Grassani’s page 2530, 2nd column discussing its Fig. 1(a), where the measured displacement is in the y direction which is orthogonal, and not any other direction (as the claim recites)). The motivation for combining the references is as discussed above in relation to claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Brown in view of Grassani teach the QIP system of claim 1, as discussed above. The aforementioned references teach the additional limitation wherein the nanopositioning system comprises one or more optics configured to bend a beam produced by the interferometer sensor and an optic configured to reflect the beam produced by the interferometer sensor (see the various lens and mirrors involved in Grassani’s Fig. 1(a) on its page 2531). The motivation for combining the references is as discussed above in relation to claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Brown in view of Grassani teach the QIP system of claim 7, as discussed above. The aforementioned references teach the additional limitation wherein the nanopositioning system comprises a base coupled to a portion of the cryostat (Grassani’s page 2530, 2nd column discussing its Fig. 1(a), where the measured displacement is in the y direction relative to the orientation of the mirror/lens assembly of the bottom arm, which the Examiner believes would be housed inside the UHV enclosure as shown in Brown’s Figure 4 per its page 5) and the one or more optics include at least one optic coupled to the movable platform and an optic coupled to the base (staying with Grassani’s Fig. 1(a), where there are mirror and lens elements shown to be coupled in relation to each of the assembly’s top and bottom arms). The motivation for combining the references is as discussed above in relation to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Brown in view of Grassani teach the QIP system of claim 7, as discussed above. The aforementioned references teach the additional limitation wherein displacement of the movable platform is configured to cause displacement of the at least one optic coupled to the movable platform relative to the optic coupled to the base, thereby changing a length of the beam produced by the interferometer sensor (Grassani’s page 2530, 2nd column discussing its Fig. 1(a), where the measured displacement is in the y direction relative to the orientation of the mirror/lens assembly of the bottom arm, such that as the y direction displacement increases then so does the beam’s length between the mirror in the top arm and the mirror in the bottom arm). The motivation for combining the references is as discussed above in relation to claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, BROWN teaches A method for performing ... displacement measurements (page 4’s 1st column (“For hyperfine atomic qubits, the optical path length of this interferometer need only be stabilised to well within the wavelength corresponding to the qubit frequency difference (~mm).”)) for cryogenic (FIG. 4, as shown on page 5, and also “cyrogenic vacuum chamber” to reduce ion/qubit collision (page 2, 1st column, top paragraph), and discussion of closed-cycle cryostat / cryogenic technology (page 6, 1st column, 2nd paragraph under the heading Compact lasers and vacuum system technology)) interferometric stabilization (stabilization of inferometer optical path length as discussed on page 4’s 1st column (“For hyperfine atomic qubits, the optical path length of this interferometer need only be stabilised to well within the wavelength corresponding to the qubit frequency difference (~mm).”) and again on page 6’s 1st column under the heading for Compact lasers and vacuum system technology (“Traditionally, a significant effort is dedicated to laser stabilisation, with individual optical components on an optical table utilising long optical path lengths. Such a large footprint invariably drifts because of environmental changes (temperature, humidity, air pressure and so on), and requires constant adjustments to keep the system operational.”), where the Examiner understands the stabilizing adjustments to be physical/mechanical adjustments to the laser and optical system assembly as discussed by the reference under the same heading) in quantum information processing (QIP) systems (Abstract and introduction, as found on page 1, discussing the development of quantum computer/computing platforms, e.g., such that the involved ions as trapped and managed are controlled “to perform the desired calculations, simulations or quantum circuit” (page 5, 2nd column, bottom paragraph)), the method comprising:
aligning an interferometer sensor with a positioning system positioned within a cryostat of the QIP system (page 4’s 1st column (“For hyperfine atomic qubits, the optical path length of this interferometer need only be stabilised to well within the wavelength corresponding to the qubit frequency difference (~mm).”));
producing, with the interferometer sensor, a beam that travels along an optical path produced by one or more optics coupled to a movable element/component of the positioning system (page 6’s 2nd column, 1st full paragraph: “For large numbers of optically networked trapped ions with many optical communication qubits, multiplexed photonic circuit elements will be necessary. Non-blocking and transparent optical cross-connect switches with many input/output ports, developed for conventional optical communication networks and data centres are well-suited for this task. Transparent optical switches establish an optical path between select input and output ports by using passive optical elements such as tilting mirrors and can guide single photons that are entangled with the trapped ion qubits to form quantum links. These devices can also be reconfigured in real time to make parallel connections between multiple ELUs.”);
receiving, with the interferometer sensor, a ... beam from the optical path and determining a length of the beam path of the ... beam (page 4’s 1st column, 2nd full paragraph, discussing “For hyperfine atomic qubits, the optical path length of this interferometer need only be stabilised to well within the wavelength corresponding to the qubit frequency difference (~mm).”);
determining a displacement of the movable element/component based on the length of the beam path of the ... beam (the tunable laser systems that are part of the ion trap quantum computer as taught, which are understood to require constant adjustments such that the system at large remains operational, as discussed in page 6’s 1st column under the heading for Compact lasers and vacuum system technology, and where a controller of some kind is necessarily involved to regulate the physical/mechanical positioning/calibration that is taught as necessary for the system’s functionality).
Brown does not specifically teach:
Limitation: performing vertical displacement measurements
Grassani teaches, at page 2530, 2nd column discussing its Fig. 1(a), that the mirror M1 with its arm are capable of displaced positioning in the y direction relative to the other arm, and as shown in Fig. 1(a) on page 2531, this y direction movement would be orthogonal to the view of the CCD camera
Limitation: a nanopositioning system
Grassani teaches, in its Abstract and 1st paragraph (page 2530) as well as discussion in the second-to-last paragraph (page 2532), the necessity for the positioning to be nanopositioning as recited.
Limitation: a movable platform of the positioning/nanopositioning system
Grassani teaches, with its Fig. 1 on page 2531, an interferometer setup that is described to feature a mirror element that is movable in a y direction to control the optical path difference between two ends of the assembly. See, e.g., page 2530’s 2nd column, 2nd full paragraph. It stands to reason that the mirror movable as described is tethered to something, e.g. an arm as described in the aforementioned paragraph, that is equivalent to a “platform” as recited.
Limitation: a reflected beam
Grassani teaches an arrangement of various lens and mirrors involved in its Fig. 1(a) on page 2531 that essentially is used to reflect a beam as recited.
Brown and Grassani both relate to frameworks that involve the use of interferometer readings to stabilize quantum applications in the state of the art. Hence, the aforementioned references are similarly directed and therefore analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate specific Grassani’s assembly (Fig. 1(a)) into a framework such as Brown’s to provide some of the detailed arrangement/assembly details that Brown addresses at only a high level, thereby providing a more full and comprehensive teaching of an interferometer per Grassani as used to stabilize optical path length as Brown contemplates.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as discussed per claim 4, and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as discussed per claim 1, and is therefore rejected under the same rationale. See, e.g., specifically Grassani’s Fig. 1(a) on its page 2531.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as discussed per claim 5, and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 19, Brown in view of Grassani teach the method of claim 15, as discussed above. The aforementioned references teach the additional limitations further comprising: receiving information indicative of a disturbance in a position of the movable platform and commanding one or more actuators coupled to the movable platform to reposition the movable platform in response to the information indicative of the disturbance (Grassani’s discussion of an error function used to evaluate and effect stabilization, as found on page 2531 (specifically, beginning with the 1st column’s 1st full paragraph), such that beam’s length is subject to stabilization as both it and Brown contemplate, see, e.g., Brown: stabilization of inferometer optical path length as discussed on page 4’s 1st column (“For hyperfine atomic qubits, the optical path length of this interferometer need only be stabilised to well within the wavelength corresponding to the qubit frequency difference (~mm).”) and again on page 6’s 1st column under the heading for Compact lasers and vacuum system technology (“Traditionally, a significant effort is dedicated to laser stabilisation, with individual optical components on an optical table utilising long optical path lengths. Such a large footprint invariably drifts because of environmental changes (temperature, humidity, air pressure and so on), and requires constant adjustments to keep the system operational.”). The motivation for combining the references is as discussed above in relation to claim 15.
8. Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grassani in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0108792 (“Boege”).
Regarding claim 10, GRASSANI teaches A nanopositioning system configured for performing displacement measurements (Fig. 1 on page 2531 teaching an interferometer setup that is described to feature a mirror element that is movable in a y direction to control the optical path difference between two ends of the assembly (see, e.g., page 2530’s 2nd column, 2nd full paragraph), and further Abstract and 1st paragraph (page 2530) as well as discussion in the second-to-last paragraph (page 2532) all make clear the necessity for positioning/adjustments to be nanopositioning as recited), the nanopositioning system comprising:
a base including an optic (a bottom arm constituting a base featuring the bottom of the assembly, including at least mirror M1);
a platform configured to be repositioned relative to the base (a top arm featuring the adjustable mirror M1, which case be caused to move in the y direction relative to the base / other arm), the platform comprising:
a first surface configured to support one or more components and a second surface opposite the first surface (the two arms and their coupled/attached elements, as discussed in relation to Fig. 1(a) on page 2530, 2nd column, 2nd full paragraph);
a mounting arm coupled to the platform at or proximate the second surface and one or more optics coupled to the mounting arm (the two arms and their coupled/attached elements, as discussed in relation to Fig. 1(a) on page 2530, 2nd column, 2nd full paragraph, and where both arms are shown in the cited figure to feature mirror/lens elements, i.e., “optics” as recited),
wherein the optic coupled to the base and the one or more optics coupled to the mounting arm are configured to form an optical path for a beam produced by an interferometer sensor (as noted just above: the two arms and their coupled/attached elements, as discussed in relation to Fig. 1(a) on page 2530, 2nd column, 2nd full paragraph, and where both arms are shown in the cited figure to feature mirror/lens elements, i.e., “optics” as recited, and further where the cited paragraph teaches the incidence of a controllable optical path between the two arms, which the Examiner understands to be implemented using a Michelson interferometer, as discussed in the Abstract and first 5 paragraphs on page 2530), and
wherein the optical path is configured to be used to determine a displacement of the platform in a vertical direction relative to an orientation of the nanopositioning system (citing again to Fig. 1(a) and the related discussion on page 2530, 2nd column, 2nd full paragraph).
To the extent that Grassani’s Fig. 1(a) and related discussion, as cited to above, is not sufficiently detailed enough to teach the first and second surface elements of Applicants’ claim, the Examiner then further relies upon BOEGE to teach what Grassani otherwise lacks, see e.g., the more detailed structural assembly of a similar two-arm interferometer-type apparatus as shown in FIGs. 5-7 and 15, where Boege’s more filled-out representation at least shows in a schematic view additional supporting features that are essentially housing and related surfaces that help to organize and manage the other shared aspects of optics, controllers, and actuators.
Grassani and Boege both relate to frameworks that involve the use of interferometer readings to stabilize quantum applications in the state of the art. Hence, the aforementioned references are similarly directed and therefore analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement specific Grassani’s assembly (Fig. 1(a)) with some of the more structural aspects found in a similar/comparable model per Boege, as cited above, with a reasonable expectation of success, such as to make the essential design more complete by providing detail as to surfaces and assemblies that exceed the level of detail found in Grassani’s assembly per its Fig. 1(a).
Regarding claim 11, Grassani in view of Boege teach the nanopositioning system of claim 10, as discussed above. The aforementioned references teach the additional limitation wherein the one or more optics coupled to the mounting arm include a first optic aligned with the optic coupled to the base in the vertical direction (Grassani’s Fig. 1(a) teaching two arms with optic elements to indicate the endpoints of the formed optical beam/path, as depicted).
Regarding claim 12, Grassani in view of Boege teach the nanopositioning system of claim 11, as discussed above. The aforementioned references teach the additional limitation wherein the one or more optics coupled to the mounting arm includes a second optical component aligned with the optic coupled to the base in a direction orthogonal to the vertical direction, and a third optic substantially aligned with the second optic in the substantially vertical direction (Grassani’s Fig. 1(a) teaching the mirror M1 which is orthogonal to the vertical direction, and see a more robust teaching of a similar optic system per Boege’s FIGs. 3-4 that the Examiner believes provides a similar beam/light path to that shown per Grassani’s Fig. and would necessarily involve optics in each of the recited directions and alignments).
Regarding claim 13, Grassani in view of Boege teach the nanopositioning system of claim 12, as discussed above. The aforementioned references teach the additional limitation wherein the first and second optics coupled to the mounting arm are prisms and the third optic coupled to the mounting arm is a mirror (Grassani explicitly teaching both lens and mirror elements in its assembly, per its Fig. 1(a)).
Regarding claim 14, Grassani in view of Boege teach the nanopositioning system of claim 10, as discussed above. The aforementioned references teach the additional limitation wherein the optical path is configured not detect displacements in a horizontal direction that is orthogonal to the vertical direction (Grassani’s page 2530, 2nd column discussing its Fig. 1(a), where the measured displacement is in the y direction which is orthogonal, and not any other direction (as the claim recites)).
9. Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Grassani and further in view Boege.
Regarding claim 9, Brown in view of Grassani teach the QIP system of claim 1, as discussed above. The aforementioned references teach a measurement, evaluation/comparison, and then adjustment as relating to its optical measurement and processing. See e.g., tunable laser systems that are part of the ion trap quantum computer as taught, which are understood to require constant adjustments such that the system at large remains operational, as discussed in Brown’s page 6, 1st column under the heading for Compact lasers and vacuum system technology, and where a controller of some kind is necessarily involved to regulate the physical/mechanical positioning/calibration that is taught as necessary for the system’s functionality). However, they do not specifically teach the further limitation wherein the controller is configured to: compare the length of the reflected beam to a target beam length and generate the repositioning signal based on the comparison. Rather, the Examiner relies upon BOEGE to teach what Brown etc. otherwise lack, see e.g., Boege’s FIG. 8, steps 510-512, which teaches an optical beam length comparison and related correction as facilitated by a controller adjustment of the physical assembly impacting that same length.
Like Brown and Grassani, Boege relates to a framework involving an optical beam measurement determination and correction. Hence, the aforementioned references are similarly directed and therefore analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Boege’s specific measurement and correction aspects into Brown’s modified framework, with a reasonable expectation of success, so as to stabilize the optical beam length as Brown and Grassani contemplate with respect to a particular measurement that Boege concretely teaches.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as discussed per claim 9, and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0348251 A1
U.S. Patent No. 9746321 B2
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0194427 A1
U.S. Patent No. 6327038 B1
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0046965 A1
U.S. Patent No. 7495773 B2
U.S. Patent No. 6757066 B2
WO 2013004861 A1
Non-Patent Literature “Linear Displacement Calibration System Integrated with a Novel Auto-Alignment Module for Optical Axes”
Non-Patent Literature “Recent advances in displacement measuring interferometry”
Non-Patent Literature “Displacement Measuring Interferometry”
Non-Patent Literature “Interferometer Stabilization with| Linear Phase Control Made Easy”
Non-Patent Literature “A Displacement Measuring Interferometer Based on a Frequency-Locked Laser Diode with High Modulation Frequency”
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHOURJO DASGUPTA whose telephone number is (571)272-7207. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm CST.
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, Tamara Kyle can be reached at 571 272 4241. 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.
/SHOURJO DASGUPTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144