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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “electromagnetic interference lip” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4-9, 14-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 4, 14, and 19 require “an electromagnetic interference lip.” However, the specification fails to provide an adequate explanation as to how this is implemented. The term “lip” refers to an opening of a hollow container. However, the specification nor the drawings fail to provide with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art what the applicant is referring to. The specification as filed further fails to explain how the opening of a hollow container provide electromagnetic interference. While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) en banc. The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
In the present instance, the claim limitation defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved.
The written description requirement under 112(a) is not satisfied by stating that one of ordinary skill in the art could device an algorithm to perform the specialized programmed functions. For written description, the specifications filed must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. An original claim may lack written description when the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the inventor has devised the function to be performed or result achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient).
The dependent claims 5-9 and 15 are rejected for being dependent on the rejected claims.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the at least one fiber adapter fixture." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The dependent claims 2-11 are rejected for being dependent on the rejected claim 1.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the at least one fiber adapter fixture." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The dependent claims 13-15 are rejected for being dependent on the rejected claim 12.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the at least one fiber distribution line," in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The dependent claims 17-20 are rejected for being dependent on the rejected claim 16.
Claims 4, 14, and 19 require “an electromagnetic interference lip.” It is unclear what the applicant means. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). While the term “lip” refers to an opening of a hollow container, it is unclear whether the applicant is using the term in this sense. Even assuming that interpretation, it remains unclear what is meant by “electromagnetic interference lip.” It is not apparent how an opening in a hollow contain could interfere with electromagnetic field. The term, “electromagnetic interference lip” is consistently referred to in the specification. However, the term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly define the term.
The dependent claims 5-9 and 15 are rejected for being dependent on the rejected claims.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Delame et al. (US20210195720A1).
Regarding claim 1, Delame et al. discloses A system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a light distribution module (FIG. 2; Fig. 1; Para. 74; The data transmission/reception unit 30. The data transmission/reception unit 30 distributes data to different optical interfaces. The data transmission/reception unit 30 comprises, as illustrated in FIG. 2, a control unit 31 adapted to convert a digital signal, carrying the data information to be transmitted, into a modulated optical signal);
at least one light adaptor fixture (FIG. 2, Fig. 1; para 74; control unit 31. The data transmission/reception unit 30 comprises, as illustrated in FIG. 2, a control unit 31 adapted to convert a digital signal, carrying the data information to be transmitted, into a modulated optical signal. The modulated optical signal is of the Li-Fi type); and
at least one fiber distribution line connecting the light distribution module and the at least one fiber adaptor fixture (Fig. 1; Para. 72-73; a plurality of optical fibers 40 connected between 31 and 50. The system comprises a plurality of optical fibres 40, at the output of the data transmission/reception unit 30 and a plurality of optical interfaces 50, one optical interface 50 at the end of each optical fibre 40).
Regarding claim 3, the present system discloses The system of claim 1, as described and applied above, wherein the at least one fiber distribution line further comprises at least one of: a transport fiber; and at least one wash light emissive fiber (Delame et al., Fig. 1; a plurality of optical fibers 40 is shown which outputs the data to the optical interfaces 50 as shown).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delame et al. (US20210195720A1) in view of Wendt et al. (US20230275660A1) and Coates (US11700058B2).
Regarding claim 2, the present system discloses The system of claim 1, as described and applied above, wherein the light distribution module further comprises: a communication input board (Fig. 2; para 74; The data transmission/reception unit 30 comprises a control unit 31 adapted to convert a digital signal, carrying the data information to be transmitted, into a modulated optical signal. The drawing of the control unit 31 of Fig. 2 implies that this component is implemented on a circuit board).
However, the present system does not expressly disclose a data processing module and a LiFi photocell input.
Wendt et al. discloses a data processing module (Fig. 2; Para. 77; A demodulating system 28 is provided for demodulating the modulated data) and a LiFi photocell input (Fig. 2; Para. 77; A light detector 26 is arranged to detect received light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teachings of Wendt et al. to Delame et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because, although Delame et al teaches that a device 35 for acquiring a modulated optical signal is placed in the control unit 31 to enable two-way data communication (see, Delame et al., Para. 105), Delame et al. is missing the details on how the received modulated optical signal is processed to achieve such two-way communication. Wendt et al. provides the missing details.
However, the present combination still lacks a LiFi and sanitation output module.
Coates discloses a LiFi and sanitation output module (Fig. 1; Abstract; Column 4, lines 61-63; the system communicates data using Far-UVC light of a germicidal wavelength. The system for wireless communication using germicidal light frequency 1 includes data input and output via a data source 10). (Coates teaches that this system accomplishes the dual purpose of sanitization and data communication (Column 3, lines 65-67)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the UVA light for communication, as taught by Coates, in the present combination in order to accomplish the dual purpose of sanitization and data communication (Coates, Column 3, lines 65-67).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delame et al. (US20210195720A1) in view of Wendt et al. (US20230275660A1).
Regarding claim 10, the present system discloses The system of claim 1, as described and applied above.
However, the present combination does not expressly disclose at least one photocell.
Wendt et al. discloses at least one photocell (Fig. 2; Para. 77; A light detector 26 is arranged to detect received light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teachings of Wendt et al. to Delame et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because, although Delame et al teaches that a device 35 for acquiring a modulated optical signal is placed in the control unit 31 to enable two-way data communication (see, Delame et al., Para. 105), Delame et al. is missing the details on how the received modulated optical signal is processed to achieve such two-way communication. Wendt et al. provides the missing details.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delame et al. (US20210195720A1) in view of Ayotte (US10693557B1).
Regarding claim 11, the present system discloses The system of claim 1, as described and applied above.
However, the present system does not expressly disclose a server operably connected to the light distribution module.
Ayotte discloses a server operably connected to the light distribution module (Fig. 1A; the media servers are connected to the network controller 120 as shown).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a server, as taught by Ayotte, in the present system in order to centralized data management for easier sharing and storing data.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delame et al. (US20210195720A1) in view of Ayotte (US10693557B1) and The Fiber Optic Association (Fiber Optic Lighting, 2019).
Regarding claim 12, Delame et al. discloses A system for data communication (Fig. 1) comprising:
a light distribution module (FIG. 2; Fig. 1; Para. 74; The data transmission/reception unit 30. The data transmission/reception unit 30 distributes data to different optical interfaces. The data transmission/reception unit 30 comprises, as illustrated in FIG. 2, a control unit 31 adapted to convert a digital signal, carrying the data information to be transmitted, into a modulated optical signal);
at least one light adaptor fixture (FIG. 2, Fig. 1; para 74; control unit 31. The data transmission/reception unit 30 comprises, as illustrated in FIG. 2, a control unit 31 adapted to convert a digital signal, carrying the data information to be transmitted, into a modulated optical signal. The modulated optical signal is of the Li-Fi type) configured in the cabin of an aircraft (Fig.1; para. 63; FIG. 1 schematically illustrates the interior of an airplane cabin 20 wherein a communication system 10 is deployed);
at least one fiber distribution line connecting the light distribution module and the at least one fiber adaptor fixture (Fig. 1; Para. 72-73; a plurality of optical fibers 40 connected between 31 and 50. The system comprises a plurality of optical fibres 40, at the output of the data transmission/reception unit 30 and a plurality of optical interfaces 50, one optical interface 50 at the end of each optical fibre 40);
at least one transport fiber (Fig. 1; a plurality of optical fibers 40 is shown which outputs the data to the optical interfaces 50 as shown).
However, the present system does not expressly disclose a server operably connected to the light distribution module.
Ayotte discloses a server operably connected to the light distribution module (Fig. 1A; the media servers are connected to the network controller 120 as shown).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a server, as taught by Ayotte, in the present system in order to centralized data management for easier sharing and storing data.
However, the present combination does not expressly disclose at least one wash light emissive fiber.
The Fiber Optic Association discloses at least one wash light emissive fiber (Page 3, Figure; second paragraph; the edge-emitting fiber is shown in the figure. Optical fibers used for lighting are similar to fibers used in communications, but optimized for transmitting light not high speed signals. Lighting fibers use large cores with thin claddings to maximize coupling of the light from the illuminator into the fiber. Side-emitting fibers have a rough interface between the core and the cladding to scatter some of the light out of the core along the length of the fiber to create a consistent lighted look similar to neon light tubes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add edge-emitting fiber, as taught by the Fiber Optic Association, in the present combination in order to emit uniform and broad light over a large area.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delame et al. (US20210195720A1), Ayotte (US10693557B1), and The Fiber Optic Association (Fiber Optic Lighting, 2019) in view of Wendt et al. (US20230275660A1) and Coates (US11700058B2).
Regarding claim 13, the present system discloses The system of claim 12, as described and applied above, wherein the light distribution module further comprises: a communication input board (Delame et al., Fig. 2; para 74; The data transmission/reception unit 30 comprises a control unit 31 adapted to convert a digital signal, carrying the data information to be transmitted, into a modulated optical signal. The drawing of the control unit 31 of Fig. 2 implies that this component is implemented on a circuit board).
However, the present system does not expressly disclose a data processing module and a LiFi photocell input.
Wendt et al. discloses a data processing module (Fig. 2; Para. 77; A demodulating system 28 is provided for demodulating the modulated data) and a LiFi photocell input (Fig. 2; Para. 77; A light detector 26 is arranged to detect received light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teachings of Wendt et al. to Delame et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because, although Delame et al teaches that a device 35 for acquiring a modulated optical signal is placed in the control unit 31 to enable two-way data communication (see, Delame et al., Para. 105), Delame et al. is missing the details on how the received modulated optical signal is processed to achieve such two-way communication. Wendt et al. provides the missing details.
However, the present combination still lacks a LiFi and sanitation output module.
Coates discloses a LiFi and sanitation output module (Fig. 1; Abstract; Column 4, lines 61-63; the system communicates data using Far-UVC light of a germicidal wavelength. The system for wireless communication using germicidal light frequency 1 includes data input and output via a data source 10). (Coates teaches that this system accomplishes the dual purpose of sanitization and data communication (Column 3, lines 65-67)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the UVA light for communication, as taught by Coates, in the present combination in order to accomplish the dual purpose of sanitization and data communication (Coates, Column 3, lines 65-67).
Claim(s) 16-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delame et al. (US20210195720A1) in view of Wendt et al. (US20230275660A1), Coates (US11700058B2), and Luo et al. (20200328814A1).
Regarding claim 16, Delame et al. discloses A data communication system (Fig. 1) for providing light in an enclosed environment (Fig.1; para. 63; FIG. 1 schematically illustrates the interior of an airplane cabin 20 wherein a communication system 10 is deployed) comprising:
a light distribution module (FIG. 2; Fig. 1; Para. 74; The data transmission/reception unit 30. The data transmission/reception unit 30 distributes data to different optical interfaces. The data transmission/reception unit 30 comprises, as illustrated in FIG. 2, a control unit 31 adapted to convert a digital signal, carrying the data information to be transmitted, into a modulated optical signal) comprising a communication input board (Fig. 2; para 74; The data transmission/reception unit 30 comprises a control unit 31 adapted to convert a digital signal, carrying the data information to be transmitted, into a modulated optical signal. The drawing of the control unit 31 of Fig. 2 implies that this component is implemented on a circuit board),
at least one light adaptor fixture (FIG. 2, Fig. 1; para 74; control unit 31. The data transmission/reception unit 30 comprises, as illustrated in FIG. 2, a control unit 31 adapted to convert a digital signal, carrying the data information to be transmitted, into a modulated optical signal. The modulated optical signal is of the Li-Fi type) further comprising the at least one fiber distribution line (Fig. 1; Para. 72-73; a plurality of optical fibers 40 connected between 31 and 50. The system comprises a plurality of optical fibres 40, at the output of the data transmission/reception unit 30 and a plurality of optical interfaces 50, one optical interface 50 at the end of each optical fibre 40),
at least one light emitting diode (Fig. 2; Para. 80; each first light source 33 is a light-emitting diode (LED)), and
at least one fiber distribution line connecting the light distribution module and the at least one fiber adaptor fixture (Fig. 1; Para. 72-73; a plurality of optical fibers 40 connected between 31 and 50. The system comprises a plurality of optical fibres 40, at the output of the data transmission/reception unit 30 and a plurality of optical interfaces 50, one optical interface 50 at the end of each optical fibre 40).
However, the present system does not expressly disclose a data processing module and a LiFi photocell input.
Wendt et al. discloses a data processing module (Fig. 2; Para. 77; A demodulating system 28 is provided for demodulating the modulated data) and a LiFi photocell input (Fig. 2; Para. 77; A light detector 26 is arranged to detect received light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teachings of Wendt et al. to Delame et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because, although Delame et al teaches that a device 35 for acquiring a modulated optical signal is placed in the control unit 31 to enable two-way data communication (see, Delame et al., Para. 105), Delame et al. is missing the details on how the received modulated optical signal is processed to achieve such two-way communication. Wendt et al. provides the missing details.
However, the present combination still lacks a LiFi and sanitation output module.
Coates discloses a LiFi and sanitation output module (Fig. 1; Abstract; Column 4, lines 61-63; the system communicates data using Far-UVC light of a germicidal wavelength. The system for wireless communication using germicidal light frequency 1 includes data input and output via a data source 10). (Coates teaches that this system accomplishes the dual purpose of sanitization and data communication (Column 3, lines 65-67)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the UVA light for communication, as taught by Coates, in the present combination in order to accomplish the dual purpose of sanitization and data communication (Coates, Column 3, lines 65-67).
However, the present combination does not expressly disclose a circuit card assembly, a collimator attached to a fiber, an adaptor coupled to the circuit card assembly, and a housing for the circuit card assembly, the collimator, the adaptor, and the light emitting diode.
Luo et al. discloses a circuit card assembly (Fig. 2C; the optical transceiver PCB Board is shown), a collimator attached to a fiber (Fig. 3; Para. 19; the collimator lens is shown. A fiber collimator lens assembly (C-lens) for coupling to the receiving end of a fiber and an output optical coupler coupled to the outputting end of the fiber), an adaptor coupled to the circuit card assembly (Fig. 3; the output optical coupler is shown), and a housing for the circuit card assembly, the collimator, the adaptor, and the light emitting diode (Fig. 1; optical transceiver housing is shown).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Luo et al. to the present combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because, although Delame et al. teaches using a plurality of optical transmitting light sources 33 and optical signal receiving elements 35 placed in a housing together (see, Fig. 2), Delame et al. does not provide the details on how to implement this. Luo et al. provides the missing details.
Regarding claim 17, the present combination discloses The system of claim 16, as described and applied above, wherein the at least one distribution line further comprises: a transport (Delame et al., Fig. 1; a plurality of optical fibers 40 is shown which outputs the data to the optical interfaces 50 as shown).
Regarding claim 20, the present combination discloses The system of 16, as described and applied above, wherein the enclosed environment comprises the cabin of an aircraft (Delame et al., Fig.1; para. 63; FIG. 1 schematically illustrates the interior of an airplane cabin 20 wherein a communication system 10 is deployed).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delame et al. (US20210195720A1), Wendt et al. (US20230275660A1), Coates (US11700058B2), and Luo et al. (20200328814A1) in view of The Fiber Optic Association (Fiber Optic Lighting, 2019).
Regarding claim 18, the present combination discloses The system of claim 16, as described and applied above.
However, the present combination does not expressly disclose at least one wash light emissive fiber.
The Fiber Optic Association discloses at least one wash light emissive fiber (Page 3, Figure; second paragraph; the edge-emitting fiber is shown in the figure. Optical fibers used for lighting are similar to fibers used in communications, but optimized for transmitting light not high speed signals. Lighting fibers use large cores with thin claddings to maximize coupling of the light from the illuminator into the fiber. Side-emitting fibers have a rough interface between the core and the cladding to scatter some of the light out of the core along the length of the fiber to create a consistent lighted look similar to neon light tubes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add edge-emitting fiber, as taught by the Fiber Optic Association, in the present combination in order to emit uniform and broad light over a large area.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAI M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:5:30 PM.
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, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached at 571-272-3078. 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.
JAI M. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 2634
/JAI M LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2634