DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/10/2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
In particular, the claim limitation “a mounting means” that uses the word “means” is 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. In para "[0061]", the specification states: “mounting device comprises a suction pad.” Therefore, the “mounting means” is construed as a suction pad.
The claim limitation “an orientation means” that uses the word “means” is 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. In para "[0127]", the specification states: “orientation means comprises at least a rotatable mirror or a mirrors using a galvanometer based motor, a galvo head” Therefore, the “orientation means” is construed as mirrors and a motor.
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 4, 8, 9, 14, and 15 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” in claim 4 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 limitation of “skirt surrounds substantially 100% of the perimeter the aperture,” is therefore indefinite. For purposes of examination, the limitation is understood to be “skirt surrounds
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the skirt comprises on a part of a border in front of the window a soften element.” The limitation is unclear as it is unclear where “a part of a border” refers, whether “a border” is a portion of “the skirt” or “the window.” For purposes of examination, the limitation is understood to have the skirt, that has a border which is in front of the window, where the border of the skirt has a part, that is a soften element.
Claim 9 recites the limitation " wherein the soften element is placed on a whole border in front of the window.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “a whole border” is the same as “a border” as previously recited in claim 8. For purposes of examination, it is understood to be the same element.
The term “majority” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “majority” 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 limitation of “a majority of reflections of the laser beam,” is therefore indefinite. For purposes of examination, the limitation is understood be “
The term “majority” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “majority” 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 limitation of “a majority of reflections of the laser beam,” is therefore indefinite. For purposes of examination, the limitation is understood be “
Double Patenting
Claims 1 and 2 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of copending Application No. 18253548 in view of Huonker (US20150190886A1).
Regarding claim 1, Claim 1 of Application No. 18253548 teaches a laser apparatus inscribed in a parallelepiped rectangle R defined by a longitudinal axis, X, a vertical axis, Y defining a plane P and a lateral axis, Z, comprising (Claim 1 lines 1-3 A laser apparatus, inscribed in a parallelepiped rectangle R defined by a longitudinal axis, X, a vertical axis, Y defining a plane P and a lateral axis, Z, comprising):
a mounting means to mount the laser apparatus on a window, mounted in situ (Claim 1 lines 4-5 a mounting means to mount the laser apparatus on a window, mounted in situ);
a laser device generating a laser beam to treat a surface of the window (Claim 1 lines 6-7 a laser device generating a laser beam to treat a surface of the window);
an orientation means able to orientate the laser beam defining a maximum decoatable surface (WSm) on the surface to be treated (Claim 1 lines 8-10 an orientation means able to orientate the laser beam defining a maximum decoatable surface on the surface to be treated);
Claim 1 of Application No. 18253548 does not teach a housing comprising an aperture to let the laser beam out of the housing; and a skirt at least partially surrounding the aperture wherein the skirt is opaque to the laser beam.
Huonker teaches a housing (4) comprising an aperture (Fig. 5) to let the laser beam (2) out of the housing (Fig. 5); and
a skirt ([0023] four individual shielding sheets 8) at least partially surrounding the aperture (Fig. 2) wherein the skirt (8) is opaque to the laser beam (2, [0013] prevents laser radiation from being discharged outwards from the inner side of the shielding housing, taken to be opaque to the laser beam).
It would have been obvious to have modified the laser apparatus as taught in Claim 1 of Application No. 18253548 to be applied to a window as taught in Huonker to have a housing and a skirt in order to be able to shield the operating region in a safe manner with respect to a laser during laser processing operations (Huonker [0003]).
Regarding claim 2, Claim 1 of Application No. 18253548 and Huonker teach the laser apparatus according to claim 1, and Claim 2 of Application No. 18253548 wherein the laser apparatus is a decoating apparatus and wherein the laser device is designed to decoat at least partially a portion of a coating system present on a surface of the window (Claim 2 wherein the laser apparatus is a decoating apparatus and wherein the laser device is designed to decoat at least partially a portion of a coating system present on a surface of the window).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
Claims 1-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huonker (US20150190886A1) in view of Estino (US8927069B1) and further in view of Safai (US20130037198).
PNG
media_image1.png
534
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figs. 2 and 3 of Huonker
PNG
media_image2.png
756
346
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figs. 4 and 5 of Huonker
Regarding claim 1, Huonker teaches a laser apparatus (1) inscribed in a parallelepiped rectangle R (9) defined by a longitudinal axis, X, a vertical axis, Y defining a plane P and a lateral axis, Z, (Fig. 4) comprising:
a laser device (3) generating a laser beam (2) to treat a surface of the surface (6);
a housing (4) comprising an aperture (Fig. 5) to let the laser beam (2) out of the housing (Fig. 5); and
a skirt ([0023] four individual shielding sheets 8) at least partially surrounding the aperture (Fig. 2) wherein the skirt (8) is opaque to the laser beam (2, [0013] prevents laser radiation from being discharged outwards from the inner side of the shielding housing, taken to be opaque to the laser beam).
Huonker is silent on a window, a mounting means to mount the laser apparatus on a window, mounted in situ; an orientation means able to orientate the laser beam defining a maximum decoatable surface on the surface to be treated.
Estino teaches a window (110, 105), a mounting means (Col. 3 lines 1-30 mounts 507 a-507 d; Col. 5 lines 55-65 mounts 507a-507d may be suction cups) to mount the laser apparatus (410) on a window (110, 105), mounted in situ;
Huonker and Estino are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser apparatuses. It would have been obvious to have modified the laser apparatus as taught in Huonker to be applied to a window as taught in Estino as it is desirable to process windows using lasers in such that certain coatings can be removed to improve the performance of commercial windows with regards to improving RF transmission through coated windows (Estino Col. 3 lines 1-30). It would have been obvious to have modified Huonker to incorporate the teachings of Estino to have a mounting means and an orientation means so that a laser device may be applied to a window that is already in place (Estino Col. 5 lines 50-60) and to be able to isolate and direct the laser beam at only necessary locations on the windows (Estino Col. 7 lines 60-67).
Huonker and Estino are silent on an orientation means able to orientate the laser beam defining a maximum decoatable surface on the surface to be treated.
Safai teaches an orientation means ([0103-0105] Mirror 812, mirror 814, and scanning lens 816 are part of beam steering system 817; motor) able to orientate the laser beam (118) defining a maximum decoatable surface on the surface to be treated ([0105] scanning lens 816 is a lens that may be controlled by a motor or actuator to direct laser beam 118 to move within volume 82).
Huonker, Estino, and Safai are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser apparatuses. It would have been obvious to have modified the laser apparatus as taught in Huonker and Estino to have an orientation means as taught in Safai in order to be able to move a laser beam over a desired area to be cured so that a desired level of heating may be uniformly affected (Safai [0046]).
Regarding claim 2, Huonker, Estino, and Safai teach the laser apparatus according to claim 1, but Huonker and Safai are silent on wherein the laser apparatus is a decoating apparatus and wherein the laser device is designed to decoat at least partially a portion of a coating system present on a surface of the window.
Estino teaches wherein the laser apparatus is a decoating apparatus (Col. 3 lines 1-30 a pulsed laser to remove (i.e., ablate) the low-E coating) and wherein the laser device is designed to decoat at least partially a portion of a coating system (120) present on a surface of the window (110).
It would have been obvious to have modified the laser apparatus as taught in Huonker and Safai to be applied to a window as taught in Estino as it is desirable to process windows using lasers in such that certain coatings can be removed to improve the performance of commercial windows with regards to improving RF transmission through coated windows (Estino Col. 3 lines 1-30).
Regarding claim 3, Huonker and Estino teach the laser apparatus according to claim 1, and Huonker teaches wherein the skirt (8) surrounds at least 80% of a perimeter of the aperture (Fig. 3 sheets 8 covering the entirety of the aperture).
Regarding claim 4, Huonker, Estino, and Safai teach the laser apparatus according to claim 3, and Huonker wherein the skirt (8) surrounds substantially 100% of the perimeter the aperture (Fig. 3 sheets 8 covering the entirety of the aperture).
Regarding claim 5, Huonker, Estino, and Safai teach the laser apparatus according to claim 1, and Huonker teaches wherein the skirt (8) is separated from an external surface of the surface (6) by a distance Dg (Fig. 2 sheets 8 are separated from surface 6).
Huonker is silent on the window.
Estino teaches window (110, 105).
It would have been obvious to have modified the laser apparatus as taught in Huonker and Safai to be applied to a window as taught in Estino as it is desirable to process windows using lasers in such that certain coatings can be removed to improve the performance of commercial windows with regards to improving RF transmission through coated windows (Estino Col. 3 lines 1-30).
Regarding claim 6, Huonker, Estino, and Safai teach the laser apparatus according to claim 5, and Huonker teaches wherein the distance Dg is higher than or equal to 0 mm (Fig. 2 sheets 8 and surface 6 shown to be flush, so Dg is taken to be 0mm).
Regarding claim 7, Huonker, Estino, and Safai teach the laser apparatus according to claim 5, and Huonker teaches wherein the distance Dg is equal to or smaller than 3 mm (Fig. 2 sheets 8 and surface 6 shown to be flush, so Dg is taken to be 0mm).
Regarding claim 8, Huonker, Estino, and Safai teach the laser apparatus according to claim 1, and Huonker teaches wherein the skirt (8) comprises on a part of a border (Fig. 3) in front of the surface (6) a soften element (14, [0025] sealing elements 14, for example, in the form of resilient protective brushes or protective cloths of laser-resistant and laser-absorbent material)
Huonker is silent on the window.
Estino teaches window (110, 105).
It would have been obvious to have modified the laser apparatus as taught in Huonker and Safai to be applied to a window as taught in Estino as it is desirable to process windows using lasers in such that certain coatings can be removed to improve the performance of commercial windows with regards to improving RF transmission through coated windows (Estino Col. 3 lines 1-30).
Regarding claim 9, Huonker, Estino, and Safai teach the laser apparatus according to claim 8, and Huonker teaches wherein the soften element (14) is placed on a whole border (Fig. 3) in front of the surface (6).
Huonker is silent on the window.
Estino teaches window (110, 105).
It would have been obvious to have modified the laser apparatus as taught in Huonker and Safai to be applied to a window as taught in Estino as it is desirable to process windows using lasers in such that certain coatings can be removed to improve the performance of commercial windows with regards to improving RF transmission through coated windows (Estino Col. 3 lines 1-30).
Regarding claim 10, Huonker, Estino, and Safai teach the laser apparatus according to claim 1, and Huonker teaches wherein the skirt (8) comprises at least two longitudinal panels (Fig. 3 four individual shielding sheets 8).
Regarding claim 11, Huonker, Estino, and Safai teach the laser apparatus according to claim 1, and Huonker teaches wherein the skirt (8) comprises at least two lateral panels (Fig. 3 four individual shielding sheets 8).
Regarding claim 12, Huonker, Estino, and Safai teach the laser apparatus according to claim 1, and Huonker teaches wherein the skirt (8) is fixed on the housing (4) with fixing means ([0024] rivets).
Regarding claim 13, Huonker, Estino, and Safai teach the laser apparatus according to claim 1, and Huonker teaches wherein the material of the skirt (8) comprises a metal-based material ([0024] metal sheets).
Regarding claim 14, Huonker, Estino, and Safai teach the laser apparatus according to claim 1, and Huonker teaches a method of treating a surface with a laser apparatus according to claim 1 mounted on the surface mounted in situ;
the method comprising treating a working area of a surface (6) with the laser beam (2),
wherein a majority of reflections of the laser beam (2)are blocked by the skirt (8, [0013] prevents laser radiation from being discharged outwards from the inner side of the shielding housing, taken to be include reflected laser beams).
Huonker is silent on surface of a window mounted in situ.
Estino teaches surface of a window (110, 105), mounted in situ.
It would have been obvious to have modified the laser apparatus as taught in Huonker and Safai to be applied to a window as taught in Estino as it is desirable to process windows using lasers in such that certain coatings can be removed to improve the performance of commercial windows with regards to improving RF transmission through coated windows (Estino Col. 3 lines 1-30).
Regarding claim 15, Huonker teaches a method of treating a surface (6) mounted in situ with a laser apparatus (1), the laser apparatus and having a skirt (8) around an aperture of the laser apparatus (1),
the method comprising:
generating the laser beam (2) with a laser device (3) to treat the surface (6).
Huonker is silent on the laser apparatus comprising a mounting means mount the laser apparatus on a window mounted in situ to block a majority of reflections of a laser beam and orienting the laser beam with an orientation means able to orientate the laser beam defining a maximum decoatable surface on the surface to be treated.
Estino teaches the laser apparatus comprising a mounting means (Col. 3 lines 1-30 mounts 507 a-507 d) to mount the laser apparatus (410) on a window (110, 105) mounted in situ to block a majority of reflections of a laser beam
It would have been obvious to have modified the laser apparatus as taught in Huonker to be applied to a window as taught in Estino as it is desirable to process windows using lasers in such that certain coatings can be removed to improve the performance of commercial windows with regards to improving RF transmission through coated windows (Estino Col. 3 lines 1-30). It would have been obvious to have modified Huonker to incorporate the teachings of Estino to have a mounting means and an orientation means so that a laser device may be applied to a window that is already in place (Estino Col. 5 lines 50-60) and to be able to isolate and direct the laser beam at only necessary locations on the windows (Estino Col. 7 lines 60-67).
Huonker and Estino are silent on orienting the laser beam with an orientation means able to orientate the laser beam defining a maximum decoatable surface on the surface to be treated.
Safai teaches orienting the laser beam with an orientation means ([0103-0105] Mirror 812, mirror 814, and scanning lens 816 are part of beam steering system 817; motor) able to orientate the laser beam (1180 defining a maximum decoatable surface (82) on the surface to be treated (106, [0105] scanning lens 816 is a lens that may be controlled by a motor or actuator to direct laser beam 118 to move within volume 82).
It would have been obvious to have modified the laser apparatus as taught in Huonker and Estino to have an orientation means as taught in Safai in order to be able to move a laser beam over a desired area to be cured so that a desired level of heating may be uniformly affected (Safai [0046]).
Regarding claim 16, Huonker, Estino, and Safai teach the laser apparatus according to claim 1, but Huonker and Safai are silent on wherein the window is a multi-glazed window.
Estino teaches wherein the window is a multi-glazed window (Col. 7 lines 25-45 double pane window 110, 120, 405).
It would have been obvious to have modified the laser apparatus as taught in Huonker and Safai to be applied to a multi-glazed window as taught in Estino as it is desirable to process windows using lasers in such that certain coatings can be removed to improve the performance of commercial windows with regards to improving RF transmission through coated windows (Estino Col. 3 lines 1-30).
Regarding claim 17, Huonker, Estino, and Safai teach the laser apparatus according to claim 3, and Huonker teaches wherein the skirt (8) surrounds at least 90% of the perimeter of the aperture (Fig. 3 sheets 8 covering the entirety of the aperture).
Regarding claim 19, Huonker, Estino, and Safai teach the laser apparatus according to claim 5, and Huonker teaches wherein the distance Dg is equal to or smaller than 2 mm (Fig. 2 sheets 8 and surface 6 shown to be flush, so Dg is taken to be 0mm).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huonker (US20150190886A1) in view of Estino (US8927069B1) and Safai (US20130037198) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lefebvfre (US20170189993A1).
Regarding claim 18, Huonker, Estino, and Safai teach the laser apparatus according to claim 5, but are silent on wherein the distance Dg is higher than or equal to 0.1 mm.
Lefebvfre teaches wherein the distance Dg is higher than or equal to 0.1 mm ([0094] the distance between the nose cone and the plate to a constant or quasi-constant value, typically between 0.1 and 5 mm, preferably between 0.5 and 2 mm).
Huonker, Estino, Safai and Lefebvfre are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser processing devices. It would have been obvious to have modified the distance of between the skirt and the window as taught by the combination of Huonker, Estino, and Safai to incorporate the teachings of Lefebvfre to have the distance between the skirt and the window to be greater than or equal to 0.1mm as creating the distance between the skirt and the processed surface corrects defects in terms of the flatness of the processed surface (Lefebvfre [0094]).
Regarding claim 20, Huonker, Estino, and Safai teach the laser apparatus according to claim 3, and Huonker teaches wherein the skirt (8) surrounds at least 95% of the perimeter of the aperture (Fig. 3 sheets 8 covering the entirety of the aperture),
wherein the skirt (8) is separated from an external surface by a distance Dg (Fig. 2 sheets 8 are separated from surface 6).
but is silent on wherein the skirt is separated from an external surface of the window by a distance Dg higher than or equal to 0.5 mm and equal to or smaller than 1.5 mm.
Lefebvfre teaches wherein the skirt ([0094] nose cone) is separated from an external surface (30) by a distance Dg higher than or equal to 0.5 mm and equal to or smaller than 1.5 mm ([0094] the distance between the nose cone and the plate to a constant or quasi-constant value, typically between 0.1 and 5 mm, preferably between 0.5 and 2 mm).
It would have been obvious to have modified the distance of between the skirt and surface as taught by the combination of Huonker and Safai to incorporate the teachings of Lefebvfre to have the distance between the skirt and the window to be between 0.5mm and 1.5mm as creating the distance between the skirt and the processed surface corrects defects in terms of the flatness of the processed surface (Lefebvfre [0094]).
Huonker, Safai, and Lefebvfre do not teach a surface of the window.
Estino teaches a surface of the window (110, 105).
It would have been obvious to have modified the laser apparatus as taught in Huonker, Safai, and Lefebvfre to be applied to a window as taught in Estino as it is desirable to process windows using lasers in such that certain coatings can be removed to improve the performance of commercial windows with regards to improving RF transmission through coated windows (Estino Col. 3 lines 1-30).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL RHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-4615. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10-6.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 2/11/2026
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761