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 .
Detailed Action
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2-2-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that because Bernhard teaches that the objective of their design is to make the device as compact as necessary, and that because the teaching of New teaches the pick-off light is reflected at a right angle that this would go against the motivation for Bernhard apparatus and thus one would not be motivated to combine the arts. This is argument is not pesuasive for several reasons. First off, DeRose was brought in to show the concept of monitoring the excitation light intensity to calibrate the fluorescence signal received and New was brought in to show the concept of using a prism to pick-off some of the excitation light. Thus, first the argument is not pesuasive in assuming the pick-off beam is required to be at a right angle by the combination. It isn’t and one of ordinary skill would know to make the angle be any that works for the device since the function being performed is agnostic to this angle. Further, the applicant’s entire argument is based on the motivation for making the device of Bernhard and in examining it is not required for the examiner to consider only the motivation stated for a combination of arts but rather would a combination be possible and would it there be a motivation to combine those arts. In other words, the examiner provided proper motivations for combining those arts and they may be different from those in the art. The examiner’s job is to show that the concepts being claimed are known, and in a 103 provide a motivation for combining the arts. In the case of this rejection the examiner has done that and notes that the applicant has failed to argue those motivations. Still further, this is known as a teaching away argument and in order for a teaching away argument to be valid the second art must make the functioning of the first art impossible. Not merely “not as compact” as the applicant appears to be arguing.
The applicant then goes on to argue that the examiner has not shown the limitation that states using a union nut to clamp the outwardly projecting edge to the housing. The applicant previously had this as an alternatively stated limitation with it being a union nut or a “clamping device” which the latter the examiner showed. The applicant further goes on to state that, “Moreover, the union nut in concert with the prism embodied with a second edge region claimed cannot be considered routine substitution of adhesives or clamps. Thus, the claimed device arrangement is not a routine application of Burge's teachings, but rather an inventive solution that Burge does not contemplate,” indicating that they presented two different inventive concepts (clamping device vs Union nut) as alternatives in the original claim while believing they are patentably separatable. In other words, the applicant is stating a restriction should have been performed between the two concepts. The examiner disagrees though and clearly two known means of affixing one object to another are not distinct and are in fact functionally equivalent.
Claim Interpretation
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: a transmission device, a measuring device, in claims 16 & 17.
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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-5, 9-17, & 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernhard (US PAT 10,359,365) (Bernhard) in view of DeRose ((2008), Standard Guide to Fluorescence - Instrument Calibration and Validation, NIST Interagency/Internal Report (NISTIR), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.7458) (DeRose) and further in view of New et al (PGPub 2020/0097691) (New) and further in view of Kiedrowski (PGPub 2017/0332885) (Kiedrowski).
Regarding Claim 16, Bernhard discloses a sensor for measuring a measurand of a medium (Fig. 3), the sensor comprising:
a transmission device (1) configured to transmit electromagnetic radiation along a transmitting path to the medium (5) (Column 3, lines 30-31);
a measuring device (2) configured to receive measuring radiation resulting from an interaction of the transmitted radiation with the medium, to determine the measurand based on the received measuring radiation, and to provide a measurement result of the measurand (Column 1, lines 13-16);
a prism (6) disposed at the end into the transmission path, wherein the prism includes a first region arranged in a housing (Top of the prism where the light from the source is incident), a second region (the bottom of the prism) comprising an outwardly projecting outer edge region,
wherein the prism is fastened to or in the sensor by the outwardly projecting outer edge region by being one of: connected to the housing of the sensor by a joint or an adhesive bond (Column 3, lines 51-55); clamped in the sensor by a clamping device; or clamped between an end face of the housing and a union nut mounted on the housing The prism including the outwardly projected outer edge region are bonded to the window by an adhesive bond and the window is attached to the housing; and
the prism is configured and arranged such that a first portion of the transmitted radiation incident on a first outer surface of the first region of the prism propagates through the prism in a direction of the medium (Column 3, 33-38);
Bernhard fails to explicitly disclose a second portion of the transmitted radiation incident on the first outer surface of the first region of the prism is reflected at the prism; and a reference detector configured to receive the second portion of the transmitted radiation reflected at the prism and to provide, based on the second portion, an output signal representing at least one property of the second portion of the transmitted radiation reflected at the prism;
However, DeRose teaches a reference detector configured to output a signal representing at least one property of the second portion of the transmitted radiation reflected at the prism (Page 13, Section 6, 1st Paragraph). The reference detector receives a signal from the excitation beam representing the excitation wavelength and excitation intensity and then calibrates the received fluorescence signal based upon that measurement by correcting it for fluctuations in the excitation beam intensity;
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify Bernhard with a reference detector configured to output a signal representing at least one property of the second portion of the transmitted radiation reflected at the prism because calibration of the excitation intensity with excitation wavelength is necessary for successful quantification when intensity ratios at different excitation wavelengths are being compared or when the true shape or peak maximum position of an excitation spectrum needs to be known;
Bernhard as modified by DeRose still fails to explicitly disclose a second portion of the transmitted radiation incident on the first outer surface of the first region of the prism is reflected at the prism; and the reference detector receives the second portion of the transmitted radiation reflected at the prism;
However, New teaches an optical processing system where prisms are used to split a beam (Paragraph 54). Thus, it would be obvious to modify the Prism of Bernhard to pick off part of the measurement beam and send it to the reference detector;
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify Bernhard as modified by DeRose with a second portion of the transmitted radiation incident on the first outer surface of the first region of the prism is reflected at the prism; and the reference detector receives the second portion of the transmitted radiation reflected at the prism because splitting a beam with a partially reflective coating on a prism is extremely common and using the side of the prism that doubles as a window for your measurement device would lead to such advantages as using less part and a more compact construction;
Bernhard as modified by DeRose and New still fails to explicitly disclose the prism is fastened to or in the housing with the outwardly projecting outer edge region being clamped between an end face of housing and a union nut mounted on the housing;
However, Kiedrowski teaches mounting of optical components by the outwardly projecting outer edge region (17) being clamped between an end face of housing and a union nut (16) mounted on the housing (Fig. 2, Paragraphs 31-33);
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify Bernhard as modified by DeRose and New with the prism is fastened to or in the housing with the outwardly projecting outer edge region being clamped between an end face of housing and a union nut mounted on the housing because this is functionally equivalent to mounting optics using adhesion and offers such advantages as easy assembly and disassembly.
Regarding Claim 17, Bernhard discloses a sensor for measuring a measurand of a medium (Fig. 3), the sensor comprising:
a transmission device (1) configured to transmit electromagnetic radiation along a transmitting path to the medium (5) (Column 3, lines 30-31);
a measuring device (2) configured to receive measuring radiation resulting from an interaction of the transmitted radiation with the medium, to determine the measurand based on the received measuring radiation, and to provide a measurement result of the measurand (Column 1, lines 13-16);
a prism (6) disposed at the end into the transmission path, wherein the prism includes a first region arranged in a housing (Top of the prism where the light from the source is incident), a second region (middle of the prism) comprising an outwardly projecting outer edge region (The sides of the prism would meet this limitation), and a third region (the bottom of the prism) adjoining the second region and comprising a third outer surface in contact with the medium during measuring mode The window (7) which is either an integral part of the prism as disclosed or glued thereon meets this (Column 3, lines 51-55);
Further, Bernhard discloses wherein the third region is configured such that the third outer surface terminates flush with an outer side of the sensor. The window (7) would be flush with the outside of the sensor end as shown; and
the prism is configured and arranged such that a first portion of the transmitted radiation incident on a first outer surface of the first region of the prism propagates through the prism in a direction of the medium (Column 3, 33-38);
Bernhard fails to explicitly disclose a second portion of the transmitted radiation incident on the first outer surface of the first region of the prism is reflected at the prism; and a reference detector configured to receive the second portion of the transmitted radiation reflected at the prism and to provide, based on the second portion, an output signal representing at least one property of the second portion of the transmitted radiation reflected at the prism;
However, DeRose teaches a reference detector configured to output a signal representing at least one property of the second portion of the transmitted radiation reflected at the prism (Page 13, Section 6, 1st Paragraph). The reference detector receives a signal from the excitation beam representing the excitation wavelength and excitation intensity and then calibrates the received fluorescence signal based upon that measurement by correcting it for fluctuations in the excitation beam intensity;
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify Bernhard with a reference detector configured to output a signal representing at least one property of the second portion of the transmitted radiation reflected at the prism because calibration of the excitation intensity with excitation wavelength is necessary for successful quantification when intensity ratios at different excitation wavelengths are being compared or when the true shape or peak maximum position of an excitation spectrum needs to be known;
Bernhard as modified by DeRose still fails to explicitly disclose a second portion of the transmitted radiation incident on the first outer surface of the first region of the prism is reflected at the prism; and the reference detector receives the second portion of the transmitted radiation reflected at the prism;
However, New teaches an optical processing system where prisms are used to split a beam (Paragraph 54). Thus, it would be obvious to modify the Prism of Bernhard to pick off part of the measurement beam and send it to the reference detector;
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify Bernhard as modified by DeRose with a second portion of the transmitted radiation incident on the first outer surface of the first region of the prism is reflected at the prism; and the reference detector receives the second portion of the transmitted radiation reflected at the prism because splitting a beam with a partially reflective coating on a prism is extremely common and using the side of the prism that doubles as a window for your measurement device would lead to such advantages as using less part and a more compact construction;
Bernhard as modified by DeRose and new still fails to explicitly disclose wherein the third region has a smaller base area than the second region and the prism is fastened to or in the sensor by the outer edge region; and the third region terminates flush with an outer side of the sensor or an end face of a union nut; the prism is fastened to or in the housing by the outwardly projecting edge region being clamped in the housing by a clamping device or clamped between an end face of the housing and the union nut mounted on the housing;
However, the Applicant has no support data, which convinces that the particular claimed configuration is significant or is anything more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing mating surfaces. In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47, 50 (CCPA 1966). See also Glue Co. v. Upton 97 US 3,24 (USSC 1878);
Further, Kiedrowski teaches wherein the third region (14) has a smaller base area than the second region and the prism is fastened to or in the sensor by the outer edge region (17); and
mounting of optical components by the outwardly projecting outer edge region (17) being clamped between an end face of housing and a union nut (16) mounted on the housing (Fig. 2, Paragraphs 31-33);
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify Bernhard as modified by DeRose and New with the prism is fastened to or in the housing with the outwardly projecting outer edge region being clamped between an end face of housing and a union nut mounted on the housing because this is functionally equivalent to mounting optics using adhesion and offers such advantages as easy assembly and disassembly.
Regarding Claim 2, Bernhard as modified by DeRose, New, and Kiedrowski discloses the aforementioned. Further, Bernhard discloses wherein the sensor is configured as one of: a turbidity sensor; a sensor for measuring a solid concentration contained in the medium; a fluorescence sensor (Column 1, line 20); a sensor operating according to the principle of fluorescence quenching; an oxygen sensor operating according to the principle of fluorescence quenching; an attenuated total reflection sensor operating according to the principle of attenuated total reflectance; or an absorption sensor.
Regarding Claim 3, Bernhard as modified by DeRose, New, and Kiedrowski discloses the aforementioned. Further, New discloses using a partially reflective coating on the prism (Paragraph 54);
Further, in combination it would be obvious to put this coating on the first outer surface of the prism;
The reasons for combination remain the same as in the independent claim.
Regarding Claim 4, Bernhard as modified by DeRose, New, and Kiedrowski discloses the aforementioned. Further, Bernhard discloses a spectrally selective filter (F2, Fig. 4, Column 3, lines 57-58);
Bernhard as modified by DeRose and New fail to explicitly disclose the spectrally selective coating is disposed on a second outer surface of the prism, through which measuring radiation emerges from the prism;
However, the examiner takes official notice that this integration of parts would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing;
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify Bernhard as modified by DeRose and new with the spectrally selective coating is disposed on a second outer surface of the prism, through which measuring radiation emerges from the prism because an integration of parts saves space in an optical devices packaging and provides a more robust device because optics are less likely to be misaligned when integrated.
Regarding Claim 5, Bernhard as modified by DeRose, New, and Kiedrowski discloses the aforementioned. Further, Bernhard discloses wherein the spectrally selective coating is configured as an interference filter, as a dichroic filter, as a color filter, as a spectral filter that is transparent to one or more spectral lines, or as a bandpass filter that is transparent to a limited wavelength range (F2, Fig. 4, Column 3, lines 57-58);
Regarding Claim 9, Bernhard as modified by DeRose, New, and Kiedrowski discloses the aforementioned. Further, DeRose discloses wherein the measuring device is connected to the reference detector, and the measurement result is determined based on the received measuring radiation and at least one property, of the second portion of the transmitted radiation reflected at the prism (Page 13, Section 6, 1st Paragraph). The reference sensor as disclosed is used to calibrate the measurement sensor thus they are computationally connected and the limitation is met.
Regarding Claim 10, Bernhard as modified by DeRose, New, and Kiedrowski discloses the aforementioned. Further, Bernhard discloses wherein: the measuring device comprises a measuring detector (2) configured to receive the measuring radiation and to output a detector signal dependent on the measurand;
the measuring device comprises measuring electronics connected to the measuring detector (Column 1, lines 13-16);
Further, DeRose teaches the measurement electronics are configured to determine and provide the measurement result as a measurement result compensated with respect to a dependence of a property of the measurement radiation, which is dependent on the measurand, on the at least one property, of the second portion of the transmitted radiation reflected at the prism (Page 13, Section 6, 1st Paragraph).
The reasons for combination remain the same as in the independent claim.
Regarding Claim 11, Bernhard as modified by DeRose, New, and Kiedrowski discloses the aforementioned. Further, Bernhard discloses wherein a monitoring device is connected to the reference detector and is configured to monitor the at least one property of the second portion of the transmitted radiation reflected at the prism (Column 1, lines 13-16) and/or is configured to output an alarm if the at least one property is outside a setpoint range specified for the respective property. The reference sensor as disclosed is used to calibrate the measurement sensor thus they are computationally connected and the limitation is met.
Regarding Claim 12, Bernhard as modified by DeRose, New, and Kiedrowski discloses the aforementioned but fail to explicitly disclose wherein the reference detector is disposed in the housing of the sensor in a region externally surrounding the prism and/or is disposed in a recess in a housing wall of the housing of the sensor;
However, the examiner takes official notice that this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing;
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify Bernhard as modified by DeRose and new with wherein the reference detector is disposed in a housing of the sensor in a region externally surrounding the prism and/or is disposed in a recess in a housing wall of the housing of the sensor because the mounting position the reference detector would be chosen based upon the direction of the second beam and packaging constraints.
Regarding Claim 13, Bernhard as modified by DeRose, New, and Kiedrowski discloses the aforementioned. Further, Bernhard discloses wherein the first outer surface of the prism on which the transmitted radiation impinges, a second outer surface of the prism, and a third outer surface of the prism facing the medium are arranged in a triangle (See fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 14, Bernhard as modified by DeRose, New, and Kiedrowski discloses the aforementioned. Further, Bernhard discloses wherein: the measuring device receives the measuring radiation via a reception path; and the reception path comprises a section extending antiparallel to a section of the transmission path extending from the transmission device to the first outer surface of the prism and extending from the second outer surface of the prism to the measuring device (See fig. 3, illustrated by the arrows going out of and into the prism).
Regarding Claim 15, Bernhard as modified by DeRose, New, and Kiedrowski discloses the aforementioned. Further, Bernhard discloses wherein at least one optical element, an optical element configured as a filter (Fig. 4, F1), or an optical element configured as a lens (Fig. 4, L1) is arranged in the transmission path.
Regarding Claim 19, Bernhard as modified by DeRose, New, and Kiedrowski discloses the aforementioned. Further, Bernhard discloses wherein the prism: is configured as a process separator through which an interior of the sensor is separated from the medium; and/or is mounted on or in the housing of the sensor such that the prism closes a housing opening of the sensor (Column 3, lines 51-55); and/or includes a third outer surface in contact with the medium during measuring mode.
Regarding Claim 20, Bernhard as modified by DeRose, New, and Kiedrowski discloses the aforementioned. Further, Bernhard discloses:
wherein the second region of the prism either comprises a third outer surface in contact with the medium during measuring mode or adjoins a third region of the prism, which comprises the third outer surface. The window (7) which is either an integral part of the prism as disclosed or glued thereon meets this (Column 3, lines 51-55);
wherein the third region has a smaller base area than the second region and/or is configured such that the third outer surface terminates flush with an outer side of the sensor or an end face of a union nut. The window (7) would be flush with the outside of the sensor end as shown.
Regarding Claim 21, Bernhard as modified by DeRose, New, and Kiedrowski discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein a seal is interposed between the union nut and the outer edge region;
However, the examiner takes official notice that using a seal is interposed between the union nut and the outer edge region (O-ring seal) between would be well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bernhard as modified by DeRose, New, and Kiedrowski with wherein a seal is interposed between the union nut and the outer edge region because this would ensure that no liquids or gases from the sample would get into the optics and thus prevent disruption of the detection or damage to the parts inside.
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 JONATHON COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-1323. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-7pm.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/JONATHON COOK/
Examiner, Art Unit 2877
April 24, 2026
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights