DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Election/restriction
The remarks take the position that the first channel region in claims 1 and 11 do not refer to the same channel. Specifically suggesting that the first channel region in claim 1 refers to the channel region in the ionization segment while the first channel region in claim 11 refers to the channel region in the filter segment and alleges that both species are supported by figure 1a. This has not been found persuasive as the remarks do not point to any suggestion within the originally filed specification which suggests the species of figure 1a having both a filter having a first and second channel and the ionization segment having a first and second channel. Therefore, claims 11-17 are withdrawn as being directed towards separate species. Additionally, claim 11 requires a chamber divided in two connected segments not required by claim 1. In otherwords, claim 1 requires at least three connected segments and an ionization source having channels, whereas claim 11 requires two connected segments with a filtering segment having first and second channels (i.e. ion source not required to be integrated to the chamber as seen for instance in figure 1b where 103 is separate from 196). Moreover, claim 11 does not require an ionization source with first and second channels allowing broadest reasonable interpretation of the ionization source to be a single channel or no channels while having a first and second channel filter. This would raise serious search burden because prior art teaching two channels of the ionization source may not teach two channels for the filter or conversely a two channel filter may not suggest a dual channel ionization segment.
With respect to claims 18-20, the remarks take the position that claim 19 requires an ionization source and therefore is directed to species of figure 1a. This has not been found persuasive. Specifically, claims 18-19 does not require the ionization source to form a segment of the divided chamber of claim 1, therefore are directed towards figures 3D or 3E where the source is not placed in the chamber non-elected without traverse.
Claim interpretation under 35 USC § 112(f):
The remarks object to the claim interpretation of “ionizing tool” and merely suggest that an ionizing tool is a class of structures. This has not been found persuasive as the remarks provide no evidence to suggest an ionizing tool is a class of structures defined by functional tools. Therefore, the claim interpretation is proper. Specifically,
(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; (tool is the generic placeholder )
(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”; (“configured to ionize the material vapor”)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 (ionization does not suggest any structure).
Rejections under 35 USC 112(d):
The amendment to claim 10 has placed claim 10 in proper dependent form. The rejection is withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 USC § 102: Miller
The remarks take the position that Miller fails to disclose the ion guidance electrodes surround substantially an entire periphery of the detector electrodes. Initially, substantially in this case is indefinite because it is not clear as to what degree of surrounding is substantial (see rejection under 35 USC 112(b) below). Since three of the four sides of the detector electrode of Miller are surrounded by the shielding electrode, Miller is interpreted to be substantial.
Moreover, the remarks take the position that the ion guidance electrodes of claim 1 are distinguished from the shielding electrodes of Miller because the ion guidance electrodes are “configured to generate an electric field to guide ions to the two parallel detector plate”. In otherwords, the remarks attempt to distinguish the ion guidance electrodes by their function and not structure. MPEP 2114 (II) recites “"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)”
Here, the shielding electrodes 124/134 are connected to leads (see figures 3B-3C), wherein the controller in figure 3A controls the voltages to leads. Since the device is capable of adjusting the voltages to 124/134 via leads, the electrodes 124/134 are configured to function so as to guide ions towards the detector 122/132 by applying voltages via the controller.
Therefore the remarks have been found unpersuasive.
Examiner note to pertinent art:
Upon further search US-2024/0310329 was found to teach a shield electrode layer 339 in figures 15-16 which surrounds the entire perimeter of electrode 336 (i.e. detector) wherein the potential applied to 339 is controlled so that ions do not collied with 339 ([0109]). That is, ions are guided towards detector 336.
‘329 is available as prior art and may be used to modify Miller. However, since the outstanding grounds of rejection has not been overcome. ‘329 is not applied herewith.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an ionizing tool…configured to ionize the material vapor” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-10 are 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.
The term “substantially surround an entire periphery” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The instant written specification does not teach “the ion guidance electrodes surround substantially an entire periphery of the detector electrodes” as amended in claim 1. The specification only suggests “The ion guidance electrodes 265A, 265B surround a periphery of the detector electrodes 204A, 204B” (see for instance paragraph [0049] of the published application). Figure 2A (annotated below) shows the ion guidance electrode 265A “substantially surrounding” an entire periphery.
PNG
media_image1.png
1085
733
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, because there is no disclosed reference standard as to determine what is considered a substantially it is unclear as to what the boundaries are for a substantial surrounding the detector electrode. For the purpose of examination it will be interpretated that any electrode that surrounds a first perimeter side and at least a portion of two additional sides is within the scope of “substantially”.
Claims 2-10 are vague and indefinite by virtue of their dependencies on rejected claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a modifier gas flows through the third opening into the ionization segment” is vague and indefinite because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim i.e. the third opening, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the third opening in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller et al. (US pgPub 2006/0222562).
Regarding claim 1, Miller et al. teach an integrated oscillating field ion spectrometry device (fig. 3E and figure 5D), comprising:
a chamber (144 in figure 3E being a sealed flow path see paragraph [0100], thus a chamber, figure 5D flow path 544) divided into at least three connected segments (fig. 3E, ionization region 146, filtering region between 120/130 and detector between 122/132, functionally divided to ionize, filter and detect. Figure 5, 508, 506 and 510) that comprises an ionization segment (128/118 or figure 5D, 508), a filtering segment (fig. 3E, 120/130 or fig. 5D, 506), and a detection segment (122/132 in figure 3E and 510 in figure 5D) arranged in order (as seen), wherein the filtering segment is located downstream from the ionization segment in a direction of flow of a carrier gas (as seen in figures 3E and 5D), and the detection segment is located downstream from the filtering segment in the direction of flow of the carrier gas (as seen in figures 3E and 5D), wherein:
the ionization segment comprises: a first opening and a second opening, wherein the carrier gas flows through the first opening into a first channel region in the ionization segment, and a material vapor flows through the second opening into the first channel region of the ionization segment (sample and carrier gas both enter the channel through an opening seen in figures 3E and 5D. Paragraph [0087] recites alternative openings of connection are within the scope of the invention. Since there is the carrier gas and the sample provided to the openings in respective figures 3E and 5D, this envisioned a second opening such that the carrier gas and the sample enter from separate openings. The sample may come from a gas chromatograph [0075] thus a material vapor flow);
an ionizing tool mounted in the first channel region (fig. 3E, 109 or figure 5D, [0123] teaches one or more ionization tools included in 508) configured to ionize the material vapor (inherent to ion sources); and
two parallel ionization region electrodes (fig. 3E, 128/118, figure 5E, 514/516) on opposing walls of the first channel region (as seen in both figures), wherein the two parallel ionization region electrodes are connected to a first DC voltage source or to ground ([0101] teaches biasing the guiding electrode 128 and 118, thus requiring a voltage source via lead 118l in figure 3B or 128c in figure 3C. [0123] teaches 514/516 are electrodes thus requiring a voltage source to ionize. Note because paragraph [0101] teaches a polar bias (i.e. positive or negative), it is interpreted to be a DC voltage source), and the two parallel ionization region electrodes are configured to prevent charging of dielectric surfaces in the ionization segment ([0123]);
the filtering segment comprises: two parallel filter electrodes on opposing walls of a second channel region of the filtering segment that are parallel to the direction of flow of the carrier gas (filter electrodes 120/130 in figure 3E, filter electrodes 518/520 in figure 5D), wherein the two parallel filter electrodes are connected to a second DC voltage source to receive second DC voltages of opposite polarity (filter electrodes 120/130 are shown to have separate leads via 120c and 130c (see figures 3b and 3C respectively). Controller 40 (fig. 1) controls the voltages applied to the electrodes based on user input, thus capable of applying opposite DC voltages (Vcomp fig. 1 is a dc voltage see paragraph [0128]) to filter electrodes in figures 3E or 5D), the two parallel filter electrodes are connected to a radio frequency (RF) voltage source to receive an RF oscillating voltage in addition to the second DC voltages (VRF see figure 1 in addition to Vcom (i.e. dc see paragraph [0128])), wherein the two parallel filter electrodes are configured to generate electric fields by the second DC voltages and the RF oscillating voltage to filter ions passed from the ionization segment ([0007]); and
the detection segment comprises: two parallel detector electrodes on opposing walls of a third channel region of the detection segment that are parallel to the direction of flow of the carrier gas (channel portion where parallel detector electrodes 122/132 in figure 3E parallel to gas flow and figure 5D, parallel detector electrodes 522/524 parallel to carrier gas), wherein the two parallel detector electrodes are connected to a third DC voltage source to receive third DC voltages and are connected to a detection system ([0152], note polarity suggests DC voltage leads provided to detectors are the voltage sources), wherein the two parallel detector electrodes are configured to generate an electric field by the third DC voltages to attract filtered material vapor ions ([0152]); and two parallel ion guidance electrodes on opposing walls of the third channel region (fig. 3 or 3c show shielding electrodes 124/134 or figure 5D, electrodes 538/540 on opposite sides of the third channel), wherein the ion guidance electrodes surround substantially an entire periphery of the detector electrodes (fig. 3b-3c, 124/134 surround substantially an entire periphery of the detector and figure 5D shows 538/540 surrounding a side periphery (note the claim does not require the electrodes to surround the entire periphery and substantial is indefinite as to what is considered to be a substantial surround of an entire periphery, see indefiniteness issue above)), the two parallel ion guidance electrodes are connected to a fourth DC voltage source to receive fourth DC voltages (figures 3B-3C show leads from 124/134, wherein the controller in figure 3A controls the voltage applied to leads. Alternatively, note paragraph [0078] teaches the detector may include a plurality of electrodes. Since the detector operates by opposite biases, upstream detector pair could be interpreted to be the guidance electrodes), and the two parallel ion guidance electrodes are configured to generate an electric field to guide ions to the two parallel detector electrodes (while the electrodes are disclosed to shield, if a sufficient voltage is applied the shield electrodes could deflect the ions towards the detection electrodes 132/122. The same applies to 538/540, paragraph [0124] teaches a bias is applied from the controller 40 thus a DC voltage wherein the source is interpreted to be the leads to 538/540), wherein the detection segment is configured to count a number of positive and negative ions of the material vapor (the detector is an electrode ([0078]), since the detector performs ion detection ([0008]) it is capable of counting the number of positive and negative ions), and wherein the first channel region, the second channel region, and the third channel region are arranged along a line and form a single channel (as seen in figures 3E and 5D).
Regarding claim 3, Miller et al. teach one or more ground shields on an outer surface of the detection segment (fig. 10H and paragraph [0174] teaches modifying the device to include concentrator 404 to the filter electrodes. Paragraph [0174] teaches these electrodes may be grounded. Since figures 3E and 5D are integrated devices, providing additional grounded concentrator electrodes to the filter is on an outer surface of the detector (i.e. on substrates as seen in figures 3b-3c)).
Regarding claim 4, Miller et al. teach wherein the ionization segment further comprises a viewing window, and wherein an ionization zone is viewable from the viewing window (when inlet tube 102 in figure 3E is removed it would provide a viewing window where the ionization zone is viewable (i.e. by insertion of a imaging device). Alternatively, ionization access port 126 allows for viewing the access hole in figure 3C).
Regarding claim 5, Miller et al. teach wherein the ionizing tool comprises a plasma source ([0091]).
Regarding claim 6, Miller et al. teach wherein an electric field generated by the second DC voltages of opposite polarity in the second channel region has a direction that is opposite to the electric field generated by the third DC voltages in the third channel region (since voltages are controlled by the controller 40 based on user input (see figure 1), the user could generate the claimed electric field [0080])).
Regarding claim 7, Miller et al. teach wherein outside walls of the chamber comprise a plurality of connection pads electrically connected to each one of the two parallel ionization region electrodes, the two parallel filter electrodes, the two parallel detector electrodes, the two parallel ion guidance electrodes, and the ionizing tool ([0089] teaches leads and bonding pads from chip. Figure 3A shows leads and boding pads 116c, paragraph [0093] teaches boding pads and leads wherein the substrate is controlled by controller 107).
Regarding claim 8, Miller et al. teach a control system (107 or 40 of figure 1) that is coupled to the first, second, third, and fourth DC voltage sources, the RF voltage source, and the detection segment (leads are interpreted to be the voltage sources, see leads and bonding pads in figures 3A-3c), wherein, the control system is configured to control the second DC voltage source to adjust the second DC voltages and to adjust an amplitude or a frequency of the RF oscillating voltage of the RF voltage source, and configured to control the first DC voltages, the third DC voltages, and the fourth DC voltages ([0079]-[0080] and [0083]).
Regarding claim 9, Miller et al. teach wherein an electric field generated by the second DC voltages of opposite polarity in the second channel region has a direction that is a same direction as the electric field generated by the third DC voltages in the third channel region (the controller is capable of generating the claimed field as it is operated by user [0080]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Schneider et al. (US pgPub 2016/0320342)
Regarding claim 2, Miller fails to disclose a first interface between the ionization segment and the filtering segment, wherein the ionization segment has a transition region next to the first interface, and a width of the transition region is tapered from a first width to a second width, wherein the second width is a width of the first interface, and the second width is between 2 to 5 times smaller than the first width.
However, Schneider teach a first interface (111) between the ionization segment (111 receives ions from ion source thus is an interface downstream the source[0022]) and the filtering segment (111 upstream of DMS 130), wherein the ionization segment has a transition region (123) next to the first interface (next to 111), and a width of the transition region is tapered from a first width to a second width ([0022]), wherein the second width is a width of the first interface, and the second width is between 2 to 5 times smaller than the first width (interpreting width between electrodes 123 on 111 side that is 2 to 5 times larger than exit at 122 ).
Schneider modifies Miller by suggesting focusing optics between the ion source and the filter segment.
Since both inventions are directed towards DMS, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the focusing optics of Schneider in the device of Miller because the tapered RF guide minimizes loss of ions upon transfer to DMS ([0018]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Miller et al. in view of Miller et al. (US2005/0167583) or Cameron et al. (US 2005/0230616)
Regarding claim 10, Miller et al. teaches while inlet and outlet tubes are shown, alternative passages, pathways, orifices, openings, apertures, or other mechanisms of connection, ingress and egress, are within the scope of the invention ([0087]). However, Miller fails to expressly teach the ionization segment further comprises a third opening wherein a modifier gas flows through the third opening into the ionization segment.
However, Miller et al. teaches the ionization segment (fig. 63, ionization region 2026 and flow channel 2022) further comprises a third opening (openings between 2024 and gas conduit 2022) wherein a modifier gas flows through the third opening into the ionization segment (dopant gases are modifiers because the improve separation of first product ions from un-ionized group of sample molecules ([0035]). Thus modify the product ions or unionized group of sample molecules).
Miller et al. modifies the ionization segment of Miller by suggesting an additional inlet of one or more dopant (modifier) gases.
Since both inventions are directed towards DMS and Miller et al. already suggests the use of apertures for ingress of gases, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a dopant gas to the apertures of Miller because it would improve separation of ions from un-ionized sample molecules therefore improving the resolving power of the DMS ([0035]).
Alternatively, Cameron et al. teach the ionization segment (figure 5 flow channel including corona discharge electrodes 20a-20e, [0104]) further comprises a third opening (fig. 5 injection holes for dopants) wherein a modifier gas flows through the third opening into the ionization segment ([0105] teaches dopant injection holes into the flow channel including ionization source (i.e. flow channel interpreted as ionization segment))
Cameron et al. modifies Miller by suggesting one of the holes to be dopant injection holes.
Since both inventions are directed towards DMS, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the dopant injection holes of Cameron in the device of Miller because dopants allow for predictable changed to “ enable enhanced detector discrimination between species having otherwise similar or substantially identical spectral characteristics” ([0105]).
Relevant art of interest to the applicant:
US pgPub 2005/0230616 teaches a GC-DMS (fig. 2a). Paragraph [0105] teaches a plurality of dopant injection holes in addition to the sample/GC injection.
US pgPub 2005/0121607 teaches individual drivers for each of the ion source, filter and detector (see figure 23).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights