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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 01/22/2026 are acknowledged and accepted. Claims 8 and 18 are amended, no Claims are canceled/withdrawn, no Claims have been added, and Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
The 112 rejection of claim 8 has been withdrawn pursuant to the amendments filed 01/22/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Song is nonanalogous on the grounds that (1) Song is in a different field of endeavor from the claimed invention and that (2) Song is not reasonably pertinent to the problem being solved (see pages 6-8 of the Remarks).
Song is within the field of endeavor
In response to applicant's argument that Song is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In this case, the device of Song and the instant application, despite operating in different wavelength regimes, share a fundamentally identical structural design. Both incorporate a metasurface composed of phase-shifting medium whose fermi level can be electrically or thermally tuned. Additionally, both feature a planar array of metallic elements arranged on said phase-shifting layer, along with a dielectric spacer between the metasurface and back reflector. The presence of electrically conductive contacts, enabling a voltage to tune the phase, is also structurally identical. Therefore, the structural concept is the same in both cases. The wavelength regime does not alter this shared structural basis. Based on the presently worded claim language, the dynamic phase modulation and beam steering architecture is independent of the wavelength for which it is designed. Therefore, the use of Song as analogous art is valid because the novelty does not rest in the particular wavelength of design but in the universal structural and functional principles as guided by the claim language. The fact that Song operates a THz frequency while the instant applications’ preferred embodiment operates at a MIR frequency does not remove Song from this shared field of endeavor as frequency scaling is a routine design choice in the art.
Furthermore, Applicant narrowly characterizes the field of the instant application as “thermal lasers with modulated coherent, narrowband IR or visible emission and tunable emission angles” (Remarks, page 6). However, the Office reminds the Applicant that it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification. "Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("Interpretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims."); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order).
Song is reasonably pertinent to the problem being solved
Applicant characterizes the problem to be solved with the provision of an IR/Visible emitter with coherent, narrowband, directionally steerable emission without mechanical devices (Remarks page 7). However, as noted above, Claim 1 does not recite these functional attributes. The relevant problem must be assessed at the level of the claimed invention not the preferred embodiment (see MPEP 2141.01(a)).
Moreover, the instant applications own specification provides a logical bridge between Songs absorber architecture and the claimed emitter. The specification states in paragraph [0002]: “heating the sample is all this is necessary to produce the desired light.” The specification acknowledges and invokes Kirchhoff’s law of thermal radiation – a materials absorptivity equals its emissivity at thermal equilibrium. Under Kirchhoff’s law, an engineered metasurface optimized as a tunable absorber is an engineering metasurface optimized as a tunable emitter. Thus, they are the same physical structure operating under the same principals. A person of ordinary skill in the art would, consistent with Kirchhoff’s law, logically consult the art of tunable metamaterial absorbers when seeking design of a tunable thermal emitter with the structural characteristics recited in Claim 1. Applicant cannot simultaneously rely on Kirchhoff’s law in the specification as the governing principal of the claimed device and simultaneously argue that absorber literature is irrelevant to the problem being solved.
Accordingly, Song is analogous art in both the field of endeavor and is reasonably pertinent to the problem being solved. Applicants non analogous art argument is not persuasive and is respectfully traversed.
The rejection is maintained, as reframed, with Brar as the primary reference.
Applicant argues that even if Song were analogous art, there would be no motivation to modify Songs THz absorber to include the dielectric spacer heater of Brar’s IR thermal emitter (Remarks pages 8-9). Applicant asserts that because Song is not a thermal emitter, heating Songs dielectric layer would produce no expected benefit, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore make no such modification.
Applicants’ argument is well taken with respect to the framing of the rejection as originally presented, in which Song was treated as the primary reference with Brar supplying the dielectric spacer heater. The Office acknowledges this framing deficiency and herby modifies the rejection accordingly. The 103 rejections of Claims 1-3 and 9-11 are maintained, but have been reframed with Brar as the primary refence and Song as the secondary refence, set forth below.
Response to arguments of claims 4-7
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Song, Brar, and Curwen fail to render claims 4-7 obvious because Curwens metal strips are designed for quantum cascade lasing and would not be suggested as substitutes for Songs specific square-frame I-type resonator geometry (Remarks pages 9-10).
The Office traverses this assertion. The parallel strip geometry recited in claims 4-7 are directly suggested by Brar itself, without reliance on Curwen or Song. Brar discloses gold nano resonator elements comprising parallel graphene ribbons with subwavelength gaps (Brar, Fig. 1B, page 1 col 2). This geometry is structurally identical to the ‘planar array of parallel metal strips separated by subwavelength gaps” as recited in claims 4-7. Curwen is utilized to better reject the ‘metal’ feature as claimed in claims 4-7. See the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brar (VICTOR W. BRAR et al. Electronic modulation of infrared radiation in graphene plasmonic resonators, Nature Communications. Vol. 6. No 7032. 07 May 2015), previously presented, and further in view of Song (CN-113241531-A), previously presented.
Regarding claim 1, Brar teaches in Fig. 1a: a thermal laser (“we experimentally demonstrate tunable electronic control of blackbody emission from graphene plasmonic resonators on a silicon nitride substrate”; abstract) comprising:
a back reflector (“a gold back reflector”; page 2 col 2 para 1, Fig. 1a);
a metasurface comprising:
a layer of a phase shifting medium having an electrically or thermally tunable Fermi level or index of refraction (graphene nanoresonaotors shown in Fig. 1a, “This device geometry was previously used as a gate-tunable absorber in the mid-IR, where a large enhancement in absorption was observed when the graphene plasmonic resonance was matched to the energy of the lambda/4nSiN resonance condition in the 1mm SiNx layer“) ; and …
a dielectric spacer (“SiNx dielectric”; page 5 col 2 para 1, Fig. 1a) disposed between the back reflector (“a gold back reflector”; page 2 col 2 para 1, Fig. 1a) and the metasurface (see Fig. 1a in which the SiNx layer is disposed between the Au later and the graphene nanoresonators); and
electrically conductive contacts configured to apply a voltage across the phase shifting medium or a phase shifting medium heater in thermal communication with the phase shifting medium (“The graphene was grounded through Au(100nm)/Cr(3nm) electrodes that also served as source-drain contacts. A gate bias was applied through the SiNx membrane between the underlying Si frame and graphene sheet.”; Figure 1 caption on page 3); and
a dielectric spacer heater in thermal communication with the dielectric spacer (“The temperature controlled stage contains a feedback controlled, heated silver block that held a 2mm thick copper sample carrier, with a 100um thick sapphire layer used for electrical isolation. The temperature was monitored with a thermocouple in the block, and the stage was held at a vacuum of 1mtorr. A 1mm thick potassium bromide (KBr) window was used to pass thermal radiation out of the stage, which was collected with a Cassegrain objective and passed into an FTIR with an MCTdetector”; Figure 1 caption on page 3).
However, Brar fails to explicitly teach: a planar array of metal elements in a periodic arrangement on the layer of the phase shifting medium.
However, in a related art in the field of tunable array-integrated broadband absorbing resonators, Song teaches in Figs. 1-3: a thermal laser comprising:
a back reflector (“a bottom metal reflection layer 6 (mainly for reflection)”; [0024]); a metasurface (layers 1 and 3-4) comprising:
a layer of a phase shifting medium (3, 4) (“graphene adjustable conductivity layer 3”; [0029], “phase change layer 4”, [0024]) having an electrically or thermally tunable Fermi level (“The Fermi level of graphene can be changed by an external bias, thereby adjusting the conductivity of graphene”; [0029]) or index of refraction; and
a planar array of metal elements (1) in a periodic arrangement on the layer of the phase shifting medium (3) (“a top metal resonant cavity 1 arranged in a periodic array”; [0024], see Fig. 2 in which the planar array 1 is arranged on the layer of phase shifting medium 3). Song further teaches this configuration such that “the periodic array resonant cavity structure of the top metal, adjusts the thickness and structure of the metamaterial to obtain optimal performance, and adjusts the vanadium dioxide phase change through temperature control, and applies a bias voltage to adjust the conductivity of graphene, ultimately achieving impedance matching between the metamaterial and free space” (Song, [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brar to incorporate the teachings of Song to provide a device in which a planar array of metal elements is provided in a periodic arrangement on the layer of the phase shifting medium, for the purpose of achieving impedance matching between the metamaterial and free space (Song, [0034]).
Regarding claim 2, Brar and Song teach the thermal laser of claim 1. Brar further teaches, in Fig. 1a: the electrically conductive contacts configured to apply a voltage across the phase shifting medium (“The graphene was grounded through Au(100nm)/Cr(3nm) electrodes that also served as source-drain contacts. A gate bias was applied through the SiNx membrane between the underlying Si frame and graphene sheet.”; Figure 1 caption on page 3).
Regarding claim 3, Brar and Song teach the thermal laser of claim 2. Brar further teaches, in Fig. 1a: the phase shifting medium is graphene ("the device consists of 20-60 nm wide graphene nanoresonators patterned into a graphene sheet on a 1 mm SiNx layer with a gold back reflector that also serves as a back gate electrode"; page 2 col 2).
Regarding claim 9, Brar and Song teach the thermal laser of claim 1. Brar fails to teach: the phase shifting medium comprises indium tin oxide (ITO), indium zinc oxide (IZO), titanium nitride, vanadium dioxide (VO2), germanium-antimony-tellurium (GST), titanium nitride, or an electro-optic polymer.
However, Song teaches in Figs. 1-3: the phase shifting medium (4) comprises indium tin oxide (ITO), indium zinc oxide (IZO), titanium nitride, vanadium dioxide (VO2), germanium-antimony-tellurium (GST), titanium nitride, or an electro-optic polymer (“vanadium dioxide phase change layer 4”; [0030]).
Song further teaches this configuration such that “When vanadium dioxide is in an insulating state at a low temperature, the conductivity is very low, so the absorption rate is very low and the transmittance is high” (Song, [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brar to incorporate the teachings of Song to provide a device in which the phase shifting medium comprises indium tin oxide (ITO), indium zinc oxide (IZO), titanium nitride, vanadium dioxide (VO2), germanium-antimony-tellurium (GST), titanium nitride, or an electro-optic polymer, for the purpose of selecting a material capable of low conductivity (Song, [0032]).
Regarding claim 10, Brar and Song teaches the thermal laser of claim 1. Brar further teaches in Fig. 1: the dielectric spacer is an aluminum oxide spacer or a diamond spacer (“By choosing a dielectric that can withstand higher temperatures, such as SiO2 or diamond-like carbon, devices displaying larger power modulation could be fabricated”; page 5 col 2 para 1).
Regarding claim 11, Brar and Song teach the thermal laser of claim 1. Brar further teaches in Fig. 1a: the thermal laser comprising the phase shifting medium heater (“The temperature controlled stage contains a feedback controlled, heated silver block that held a 2mm thick copper sample carrier, with a 100mm thick sapphire layer used for electrical isolation”; see caption under Figure 1 ).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brar (VICTOR W. BRAR et al. Electronic modulation of infrared radiation in graphene plasmonic resonators, Nature Communications. Vol. 6. No 7032. 07 May 2015), previously presented, and Song (CN-113241531-A), previously presented, and further in view of Curwen (US 20200067281 A1), previously presented.
Regarding claim 4, Brar and Song teach the thermal laser of claim 3. Brar teaches to a configuration in which the planar array of strips are separated by subwavelength gaps: “20–60nm wide
graphene nanoresonators patterned into a graphene sheet” (Brar, page 2 col 2 para 1).
However, Brar fails to teach that: the planar array of metal elements is a planar array of parallel metal strips separated by subwavelength gaps.
However, in a related invention in the field of meta surfaces used for lasing, Curwen teaches in Fig. 1: the planar array of metal elements is a planar array of parallel metal strips (“an array of quantum-cascade laser active strips and spaced with a period”; [0019], “an array of subcavities 104 disposed thereon in the form of inhomogeneous metal-metal waveguide ridges”; [0050]) separated by subwavelength gaps (“This is an advantageous geometry for efficient heat removal since the transverse waveguide dimensions can be made much smaller than the wavelength without cutting off the fundamental mode, which allows low total power dissipation”; [0071]).
Furthermore, Curwen teaches this configuration such that “the facet is a sub-wavelength sized radiating aperture, which leads to a highly divergent beam and low output coupling efficiency due to the strong impedance mismatch between the waveguide and free space” (Curwen, [0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brar and Song to incorporate the teachings of Curwen to provide a device in which the planar array of metal elements is a planar array of parallel metal strips separated by subwavelength gaps, for the purpose of low total power dissipation (Curwen, [0071]).
Regarding claim 5, Brar and Song teach the thermal laser of claim 4. Brar and Song fail to explicitly teach: the metal strips are gold strips.
However, Curwen teaches in Fig. 1: the metal strips are gold strips (“the second metallic layer includes titanium, tantalum, gold, or a combination thereof”; [0018]).
Furthermore, Curwen teaches this configuration such that “The metasurface can impose a phase shift on a reflected beam, which increases substantially quadratically with a distance from a metasurface center. When electrically biased, the reflectarray metasurface can amplify and focus the reflected beam” (Curwen, [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brar and Song to incorporate the teachings of Curwen to provide a device in which the metal strips are gold strips, for the purpose providing a material capable of providing a phase shift of a reflected beam (Curwen, [0047]).
Regarding claim 6, Brar and Song teach the thermal laser of claim 5. Brar further teaches in Fig. 1a: the dielectric spacer is a silicon nitride spacer (“In the present work, we experimentally demonstrate the dynamic tuning of blackbody emission through electronic control of graphene plasmonic nanoresonators on a silicon nitride substrate”; page 2 col 2 para 3).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brar (VICTOR W. BRAR et al. Electronic modulation of infrared radiation in graphene plasmonic resonators, Nature Communications. Vol. 6. No 7032. 07 May 2015), previously presented, and Song (CN-113241531-A), previously presented, and further in view of Curwen (US 20200067281 A1), previously presented.
Regarding claim 7, Brar and Song teach the thermal laser of claim 1. Brar teaches to a configuration in which the planar array of strips are separated by subwavelength gaps: “20–60nm wide
graphene nanoresonators patterned into a graphene sheet” (Brar, page 2 col 2 para 1).
However, Brar fails to teach that: the planar array of metal elements is a planar array of parallel metal strips separated by subwavelength gaps.
However, in a related invention in the field of metasurfaces used for lasing, Curwen teaches in Fig. 1: the planar array of metal elements is a planar array of parallel metal strips (“an array of quantum-cascade laser active strips and spaced with a period”; [0019], “an array of subcavities 104 disposed thereon in the form of inhomogeneous metal-metal waveguide ridges”; [0050]) separated by subwavelength gaps (“This is an advantageous geometry for efficient heat removal since the transverse waveguide dimensions can be made much smaller than the wavelength without cutting off the fundamental mode, which allows low total power dissipation”; [0071]).
Furthermore, Curwen teaches this configuration such that “the facet is a sub-wavelength sized radiating aperture, which leads to a highly divergent beam and low output coupling efficiency due to the strong impedance mismatch between the waveguide and free space” (Curwen, [0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brar and Song to incorporate the teachings of Curwen to provide a device in which the planar array of metal elements is a planar array of parallel metal strips separated by subwavelength gaps, for the purpose of low total power dissipation (Curwen, [0071]).
Regarding claim 8, Brar and Song teach the thermal laser of claim 7. Brar and Song fail to explicitly teach: the metal strips are gold strips.
However, Curwen teaches in Fig. 1: the metal strips are gold strips (“the second metallic layer includes titanium, tantalum, gold, or a combination thereof”; [0018]).
Furthermore, Curwen teaches this configuration such that “The metasurface can impose a phase shift on a reflected beam, which increases substantially quadratically with a distance from a metasurface center. When electrically biased, the reflectarray metasurface can amplify and focus the reflected beam” (Curwen, [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brar and Song to incorporate the teachings of Curwen to provide a device in which the metal strips are gold strips, for the purpose providing a material capable of providing a phase shift of a reflected beam (Curwen, [0047]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 12, the closest prior art, Song (CN-113241531-A) teaches in Fig. 1-3: a method for creating a steerable thermal laser beam using a thermal laser comprising:
a back reflector (“a bottom metal reflection layer 6 (mainly for reflection)”; [0024]);
a metasurface (layers 1 and 3-4) comprising:
a layer of a phase shifting medium (3, 4) (“graphene adjustable conductivity layer 3”; [0029], “phase change layer 4”, [0024]) having an electrically or thermally tunable Fermi level (“The Fermi level of graphene can be changed by an external bias, thereby adjusting the conductivity of graphene”; [0029]) or index of refraction; and
a planar array of metal elements (1) in a periodic arrangement on the layer of the phase shifting medium (3) (“a top metal resonant cavity 1 arranged in a periodic array”; [0024], see Fig. 2 in which the planar array 1 is arranged on the layer of phase shifting medium 3);
a dielectric spacer (“intermediate dielectric layer 5”; [0024], see Fig. 2) disposed between the back reflector (6) and the metasurface (surfaces 1 and 3-4); and
electrically conductive contacts (“conductive electrode 2”; [0029]) configured to apply a voltage across the phase shifting medium (“conductive electrode 2 is set on the graphene adjustable conductivity layer 3 and a bias voltage is added”; [0029]) or a phase shifting medium heater in thermal communication with the phase shifting medium heat is used to regulate the phase change of vanadium dioxide (“heat is used to regulate the phase change of vanadium dioxide”; [0029]).
However, Song fails to explicitly teach: a dielectric spacer heater in thermal communication with the dielectric spacer, the method comprising: heating the dielectric spacer to generate thermal radiation, wherein said thermal radiation couples to a vertically oscillating Fabry-Perot resonance mode in the dielectric spacer to generate a lobe of coherent radiation at an emission angle; and either applying a voltage across the layer of the phase shifting medium or changing the temperature of the phase shifting medium, thereby changing the emission angle of the lobe of coherent radiation.
However, in a related art in the field of electronic modulation of infrared radiation in graphene plasmonic resonators, Brar teaches in Fig. 1: a dielectric spacer heater (“heated silver block”; page 3 first paragraph) in thermal communication with the dielectric spacer (“SiNx dielectric”; page 5 col 2 paragraph 1, “The temperature-controlled stage contains a feedback controlled, heated silver block that held a 2 mm thick copper sample carrier, with a 100 mm thick sapphire layer used for electrical isolation”; page 3 description under Fig. 1, see Fig. 1 in which the flow of heat from the silver block would thermally communicate with the dielectric spacer since copper and sapphire are known thermal conductors).
Furthermore, Brar teaches this configuration such that: “When the SiNx is heated, the plasmonic modes act as antennae to enhance the spontaneous thermal radiation from the nearby SiNx. The enhancement of the spontaneous emission radiative rate and of the quantum efficiency arising from dipole emitters’ proximity to a dipole optical antenna is well known, and is attributed to increasing the probability of radiative emission by modification of the photonic mode density” (Brar, page 4 col 2 para 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Song to incorporate the teachings of Brar to provide a device in which a dielectric spacer heater in thermal communication with the dielectric spacer, for the purpose of to increasing the probability of radiative emission by modification of the photonic mode density (Brar, page 4 col 2 para 2).
Brar fails to explicitly teach: heating the dielectric spacer to generate thermal radiation, wherein said thermal radiation couples to a vertically oscillating Fabry-Perot resonance mode in the dielectric spacer to generate a lobe of coherent radiation at an emission angle; and either applying a voltage across the layer of the phase shifting medium or changing the temperature of the phase shifting medium, thereby changing the emission angle of the lobe of coherent radiation.
Therefore, based on the prior art of record it would be improper hindsight to modify Song in view of Brar to provide a device that satisfies the limitations of claim 12. Therefore, the combination of features is considered to be allowable.
Claims 13-20 would be allowable for its dependence on claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US20160103341: Actively Tunable Polar-Dielectric Optical Devices
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUBY L KAUFFMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1738. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am - 5pm EST.
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 Pham can be reached at (571) 272-3689. 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.
/RUBY L KAUFFMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/THOMAS K PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872