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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5 and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/20/26.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search burden because the distinguishing components are alternative of a generic form. This is not found persuasive because applicant did not state the alternatives of the generic form are obvious variants so the alternatives are distinct species with different designs that require different search strategies and queries (different queries because of different designs is self-explanatory) because of these differing designs as stated in the restriction requirement.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 1108, 1112 (note the probability of more reference characters not in the specification, please review the rest). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 23 recites arms of the MZI, but it depends from a claim with two separate MZIs, so it is unclear as to what arms of what MZI this is referring to.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “means for demultiplexing” (claims 17-23) has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses the word “means” coupled with functional language, but it is modified by some structure or material that is ambiguous regarding whether that structure or material is sufficient for performing the claimed function. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The ”means for demultiplexing” is described as different components (an arrayed waveguide grating, an echelle grating and one or more Mach-Zehnder interferometers) so the structure is modified making it ambiguous regarding whether the structures perform the claimed function.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 7, 9, 12-16 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mizuno et al (US 7,085,438 B2). Mizuno teaches:
1. A photonic integrated circuit (PIC) die (504, Fig. 64) comprising:
a first switch (111, 103) comprising an input (bottom end in Fig. 64), a first output, and a second output (opposite, top end in Fig. 64);
a wavelength interleaver (112, 107) comprising an input (bottom end), a first output, and a second output (top end), wherein the first output of the first switch (111, 103) is connected to the input of the wavelength interleaver (112, 107) (see Fig. 64); and
a second switch (113, 106) comprising a first input, a second input (bottom end), and an output (top end), wherein the first input of the second switch (113, 106) is connected to the second output of the first switch (111, 103) (from 107), wherein the second input of the second switch (113, 106) is connected to the first output of the wavelength interleaver (112, 107) (at 401, see Fig. 64).
7/9. The PIC die of claim 1, wherein the first switch (111, 103) is configured to transmit substantially all light from the input of the first switch to the first and second outputs of the first switch (phase and delay are the only conditioning of the signal, no signal is routed elsewhere or lost), wherein the second switch (113, 106) is configured to transmit substantially all light from the second input to the output (phase and delay are the only conditioning of the signal, no signal is routed elsewhere or lost) (C46 L20-63).
12. The PIC die of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of waveguides connecting the first switch, the second switch, and the wavelength interleaver, wherein the plurality of waveguides are silicon waveguides (C53 L47-64).
13. (Original) The PIC die of claim 1, wherein the wavelength interleaver (112, 107) comprises one or more Mach-Zehnder interferometers (part of 112, see Fig. 64; each 111-113 are MZI structures).
14. The PIC die of claim 1, wherein the first switch (111, 103) is a Mach-Zehnder interferometer (see Fig. 64), wherein the second switch (113, 106) is a Mach-Zehnder interferometer (see Fig. 64).
15. A system comprising the PIC die of claim 14, further comprising a controller (the phase length adjusting devices 401 can be considered arms of the interferometers) to control a phase between a first arm of the Mach-Zehnder interferometer and a second arm of the Mach-Zehnder interferometer (each 401 is a thermooptic, electro-optic or magnetooptic modulators, which require a “controller” to at least turn off and on, but also they are adjustable devices; C17 L57-63). Note, the claim is unclear as to what arm of which MZI this is referring to so the claim was interpreted as best as possible.
16. A system comprising the PIC die of claim 1, further comprising a controller to control the first switch and the second switch (controlling the phase adjusting elements can be considered the same as controlling the switches; C17 L57-63).
24. A method for using a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) die (504, Fig. 64), the method comprising:
connecting an optical fiber (not shown) to the PIC die (504) (C17 L48-56);
determining a channel spacing associated with a plurality of channels associated with the optical fiber (C46 L20-38); and
configuring an adaptive demultiplexer (part of 111-113, 401) on the PIC die (504) based on the determined channel spacing (C46 L54-67), wherein the PIC die comprises:
a first switch (111, 103) comprising an input (bottom end in Fig. 64), a first output, and a second output (opposite, top end in Fig. 64);
a wavelength interleaver (112, 107) comprising an input (bottom end), a first output, and a second output (top end), wherein the first output of the first switch (111, 103) is connected to the input of the wavelength interleaver (112, 107) (see Fig. 64); and
a second switch (113, 106) comprising a first input, a second input (bottom end), and an output (top end), wherein the first input of the second switch (113, 106) is connected to the second output of the first switch (111, 103) (from 107), wherein the second input of the second switch (113, 106) is connected to the first output of the wavelength interleaver (112, 107) (at 401, see Fig. 64).
Claims 17 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goh et al (US 8,879,873 B2). Goh teaches:
17.A photonic integrated circuit (PIC) die (Fig. 18) comprising:
an input waveguide (part of 7a, at 44);
a first plurality of output waveguides (PORT 1-2);
a second plurality of output waveguides (PORT 3-4); and
means for demultiplexing light (TILF1-1, TILF2-1, TILF2-2) from the input waveguide (part of 7a) to the first plurality of output waveguides (PORT 1-2) and the second plurality of output waveguides (PORT 3-4),
wherein the means for demultiplexing light (TILF1-1, TILF2-1, TILF2-2) can be set to a first configuration (using Four Carriers, see Fig. 19C) and can be set to a second configuration (using One or Two Carriers, Figs. 19D-E),
wherein, in the first configuration, the means for demultiplexing light demultiplexes light in a first set of channels to the first plurality of output waveguides (see Fig. 19C, PORT 1-2),
wherein, in the second configuration, the means for demultiplexing light demultiplexes light in a second set of channels to the first plurality of output waveguides (see Figs. 19D-E, PORT 1-2) and the second plurality of output waveguides (see Figs. 19D-E, PORT 3-4),
wherein each channel in the first set of channels overlaps with at least two channels in the second set of channels (see Figs. 19C-E, each show overlapping channels on each side of each frequency, which equates to channels overlapping two channels).
21. The PIC die of claim 17, wherein the input waveguide, the first plurality of output waveguides, and the second plurality of output waveguides are silicon waveguides (C33 L42-58).
22. The PIC die of claim 17, wherein the means for demultiplexing light comprises one or more Mach-Zehnder interferometers (C19 L5-26).
23. A system comprising the PIC die of claim 17, further comprising a controller to control the means for demultiplexing light (individually setting the coupling rate of couplers can be considered a “controller”; C19 L5-26).
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.
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.
Claims 2, 10 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno as applied to claims 1, 9 and 24 above, and further in view of Oguma et al (US 6,606,433 B2).
Mizuno teaches the photonic integrated circuit die previously discussed.
Mizuno does not teach expressly:
2. The PIC die of claim 1, further comprising: a first wavelength division multiplexer (WDM) comprising an input and a plurality of outputs, wherein the input of the first WDM is connected to the output of the second switch; and a second WDM comprising an input and a plurality of outputs, wherein the input of the second WDM is connected to the second output of the wavelength interleaver.
10. The PIC die of claim 9, further comprising: a wavelength division multiplexer (WDM) comprising an input and a plurality of outputs, wherein the input of the WDM is connected to the output of the second switch, wherein a light source provides light to the input of the first switch at each of a plurality of channels, wherein the first switch and the second switch route the light to the WDM, wherein the WDM separates light from each of the plurality of channels into a corresponding output of the plurality of outputs.
25. The method of claim 24, wherein the PIC die further comprises: a first wavelength division multiplexer (WDM) comprising an input and a plurality of outputs, wherein the input of the first WDM is connected to the output of the second switch; and a second WDM comprising an input and a plurality of outputs, wherein the input of the second WDM is connected to the second output of the wavelength interleaver.
Oguma teaches a PIC die (Fig. 11), comprising:
a first wavelength division multiplexer (WDM) (1101) comprising an input and a plurality of outputs (see Fig. 11), wherein the input of the first WDM (1101) is connected to the output of a second switch (1105); and a second WDM (1103) comprising an input and a plurality of outputs (see Fig. 11), wherein the input of the second WDM (1103) is connected to the second output of a wavelength interleaver (1107 with 1106), and
a wavelength division multiplexer (WDM) (1101) comprising an input and a plurality of outputs (see Fig. 11), wherein the input of the WDM is connected to the output of the second switch (1105),
wherein a light source (not shown) provides light to the input of the first switch at each of a plurality of channels (C5 L40-53),
wherein a first switch (1107) and the second switch (1105) route the light to the WDM (1101/1102),
wherein the WDM separates light from each of the plurality of channels into a corresponding output of the plurality of outputs (see Fig. 8; C7 L65 – C8 L8), and
wherein the PIC die further comprises: a first wavelength division multiplexer (WDM) (1101) comprising an input and a plurality of outputs (see Fig. 11), wherein the input of the first WDM is connected to the output of a second switch (1105); and
a second WDM (1103) comprising an input and a plurality of outputs (see Fig. 11), wherein the input of the second WDM (1103) is connected to the second output of a wavelength interleaver (1107 with 1106).
Mizuno and Oguma are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, photonic integrated circuit dies.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the PIC of Mizuno to include WDMs at each output of the die as taught by Oguma.
The motivation for doing so would have been to demultiplex the signals at a needed channel spacing around their center wavelengths (Oguma, C4 L56 – C5 L6).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno and Oguma as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Arbore et al (US 12,111,210 B2).
Mizuno and Oguma teach the PIC die previously discussed.
Mizuno and Oguma do not teach expressly:
4. The PIC die of claim 2, wherein a plurality of light sources transmit light into one or more of the plurality of outputs of the first WDM and transmit light into one or more of the plurality of outputs of the second WDM.
6. The PIC die of claim 2, wherein the first WDM comprises an echelle grating.
Arbore teaches a PIC die (Fig. 2A) comprising, a plurality of light sources (207s) transmit light into one or more of the plurality of outputs of a first WDM (235A) and transmit light into one or more of the plurality of outputs of a second WDM (235B), wherein the first WDM comprises an echelle grating (C18 L3-26).
Mizuno, Oguma and Arbore are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, optical WDMs.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the die of Mizuno and Oguma to include light sources at the output for bi-directional transmission as taught by Arbore.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for multiplexing of signals from the output end of the WDMs and to reduce complexity by using known WDM structures such as Echelle gratings.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Little et al (US 8,224,139 B2).
Mizuno teaches the PIC die previously discussed.
Mizuno does not teach expressly:
11. The PIC die of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of waveguides connecting the first switch, the second switch, and the wavelength interleaver, wherein the plurality of waveguides are silicon nitride waveguides.
Little teaches a PIC die wherein the waveguide components are silicon nitride waveguides (C5 L12-23).
Mizuno and Little are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, PIC dies.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the die of Mizuno to include silicon nitride waveguides as taught by Little.
The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce cost and complexity by using standard materials used in the waveguide field, such as silicon nitride.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goh as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Arbore et al (US 12,111,210 B2).
Goh teaches the PIC die previously discussed.
Goh does not teach expressly:
19. The PIC die of claim 17, wherein the means for demultiplexing light comprises an echelle grating.
Arbore teaches a PIC die (Fig. 2A) comprising, a plurality of light sources (207s) transmit light into one or more of the plurality of outputs of a first WDM (235A) and transmit light into one or more of the plurality of outputs of a second WDM (235B), wherein the first WDM comprises an echelle grating (C18 L3-26).
Goh and Arbore are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, optical WDMs.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the die of Goh to include echelle gratings as taught by Arbore.
The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce complexity by using known WDM structures such as Echelle gratings.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goh as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Little et al (US 8,224,139 B2).
Goh teaches the PIC die previously discussed.
Goh does not teach expressly:
20. The PIC die of claim 17, wherein the input waveguide, the first plurality of output waveguides, and the second plurality of output waveguides are silicon nitride waveguides.
Little teaches a PIC die wherein the waveguide components are silicon nitride waveguides (C5 L12-23).
Goh and Little are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, PIC dies.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the die of Goh to include silicon nitride waveguides as taught by Little.
The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce cost and complexity by using standard materials used in the waveguide field, such as silicon nitride.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
These claims would be allowable over the prior art of record if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because the latter, either alone or in combination, does not disclose nor render obvious a photonic integrated circuit die with the claimed first switch, wavelength interleaver, second switch in combination with either:
the claimed first and second WDMs wherein the wavelength interleaver is to deinterleave a first set of channels from a second set of channels, wherein the wavelength interleaver is to route light in the first set of channels to the first output of the wavelength interleaver, wherein the wavelength interleaver is to route light in the second set of channels to the second output of the wavelength interleaver, wherein the first WDM is to demultiplex the first set of channels, wherein the second WDM is to demultiplex the second set of channels, wherein a 3 dB bandwidth for channels of the first WDM is at least 50% larger than a 3 dB bandwidth for channels of the wavelength interleaver, or
the first switch is configured to transmit substantially all light from the input of the first switch to the first output of the first switch, wherein the second switch is configured to transmit substantially all light from the second input to the output, a first WDM comprising an input and a plurality of outputs, wherein the input of the first WDM is connected to the output of the second switch; and a second WDM comprising an input and a plurality of outputs, wherein the input of the second WDM is connected to the second output of the wavelength interleaver, wherein a light source provides light to the input of the first switch at each of a plurality of channels, wherein a first part of the light corresponding to a first set of channels is routed by the wavelength interleaver to the first WDM, wherein a second part of the light corresponding to a second set of channels is routed by the wavelength interleaver to the second WDM,
in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references teach different WDM configurations with some of applicant’s structure: US 6724957, US 6735358, US 2005/0276539, US 7171067, US 8483525, US 8625943, US 8737779, US 8879873, US 9020307, US 10050717, US 2021/0302652, US 11585899, US 11656405.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A LEPISTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1946. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN A LEPISTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874