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 .
This action is responsive to the filing of 3/10/2026.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s first argument is that the relationship between the categories of invention in claims 1 and 13 as a process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process removes the requirement for the inventions to share a special technical feature, however, this argument is not persuasive. Multiple inventions in the same application must still be so linked as to form a single general inventive concept, even if one claim is to a process and another claim is usable with that process, though it is the Examiner’s position that this requirement is met by the dependence of claim 13 on claim 1.
Applicant’s second argument is that there would not be a serious search or examination burden to examine all claims, citing MPEP 803, however this argument is moot. The requirement to show serious search or examination burden, like the “independent and distinct” test, only applies national applications filed under 35 U.S.C. § 111(a), not to national stage applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. § 371, such as the instant application.
The requirement for restriction is withdrawn after full consideration due to the dependence of claim 13 on claim 1, as any technical features of claim 1 are necessarily incorporated into claim 13 and its dependent claims.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 3, the last 3 lines describe thresholding following Otsu’s method as “minimizing the inter-class variance of the histogram of the image”. As it is generally understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, Otsu’s method, which separates pixels into classes that are unified within each class and different from one class to another, may be more accurately characterized as minimizing the intra-class variance of the histogram of the image (so that each class is unified with itself) or, equivalently, maximizing the inter-class variance of the histogram of the image (so that each class is different from the other).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-12 start with “Detection method” rather than “A detection method” in claim 1 and “The detection method” in claims 2-12.
Claims 13-15 start with “System” rather than “A system” in claim 13 and “The system” in claims 14-15.
In each of claims 1, 8, 10, and 13, at least one colon (:) appears to be improperly preceded by a space ( ).
In claim 1, substep E1 lacks a comma at the end.
In claim 1, sub-steps E3 and E4 are not separated by “and”, nor are steps E (including sub-steps) and F.
In claim 10, the word “substep” in line 3 is singular, despite two substeps being recited.
In claim 10, the newly introduced substeps are numbered iii and iv. While not strictly improper, the lack of substeps i and ii raises questions as to the intentionality of the substep numbers chosen (or whether substeps i and ii were inadvertently omitted), and clarification would be appreciated.
In claim 10, “Determining” does not need to be capitalized in lines 4 or 7.
In claim 13, the components a and b are not separated by “and”, nor are the subcomponents of component b.
Claim 13, line 4 recites “to held a liquid”, likely intended as “to hold a liquid”.
In claim 15, line 2, “to acquired” is likely intended to as “to acquire”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
the control unit of claims 1 and 13, interpreted as comprising a computer vision algorithm embedded in firmware of an electronic board to which the imager is connected (page 12, lines 5-6. Note that a typical computer that receives image data from an imager would meet this limitation, absent evidence to the contrary) and
the imager of claims 1 and 13, interpreted as a 2D camera device (page 11, line 14).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The claims are interpreted as not requiring that the method be practiced for in vitro detection and/or quantification, that the device be for in vitro detection and/or quantification, nor that the predefined score be 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the second feature" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The second feature is interpreted as a second feature and is interpreted broadly. Note that no first feature is recited.
Claim 7 recites the limitations "the relative position descriptor" and “the position of the peak of grey level of each first scan”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim and in claim 4, on which claim 7 directly depends. Since claim 5 also directly depends on claim 4 and would provide antecedent basis for the claim terms, claim 7 may be intended to depend on claim 5 instead of directly depending on claim 4. Alternatively, claim 7 may be intended to introduce those terms. Both interpretations are addressed below.
Claim 10 characterizes substep E4 as “consisting in” determining at least one line similarity descriptor”, while also saying that it “comprises” a couple additional substeps. Typically, “consisting in”-type transitional phrases denote that only the recited elements may be included, while “comprises” would denote that unrecited elements may be included. The combination of the two renders the scope of substep E4 unclear. The claim is interpreted as not prohibiting additional actions as part of substep E4. See MPEP 2111.03.
Claim 10 recites determining n grey level functions. As no definition of n is recited, n is interpreted a positive integer.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the overall descriptor" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim is interpreted as introducing an overall descriptor, which is interpreted broadly.
Claim 13 is a system claim that depends on process claim 1. Step A of claim 1 requires that a system be provided comprising particular components, including a support with a well, a device, a control unit, an imager, and a pattern. Claim 13 is directed to a system with a similar set of components to the system provided in step A of claim 1. It is unclear whether the system provided as a step in claim 1 is intended to serve as antecedent basis for the system of claim 13 (requiring that the claimed system be the one provided in the method) or if the system in claim 13 is required to provide a second system with a second set of components (requiring that the claimed system NOT be the one provided in the method). The claim is interpreted as not strictly requiring a distinction between the system of claim 13 and the system provided as step A of claim 1, nor a distinction between the respective components recited in both claims.
Claims 2-15 are indefinite for depending on at least one indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tojo (US patent publication 20120127290).
Regarding claim 1, Tojo teaches a detection method of liquid presence inside a well of a transparent or translucent support intended for analysis performed in a device (FIG. 1A, liquid medicine identification apparatus 10) for example for in vitro detection and/or quantification, the detection method comprising at least the following steps:
A. providing a system comprising: a support comprising at least one well configured to be filled with liquid to analyze (FIG. 1A, medicine container 16, configured to contain liquid medicine 15),
a device for example for in vitro detection and/or quantification, comprising: a base configured to receive at least one support (FIG. 1A, liquid medicine identification apparatus 10, which holds medicine container 16),
one control unit storing at least one reference image (FIG. 1A, image processing unit 11, described in paragraph 16),
one imager with a field of view, the imager being controlled by the control unit and being configured to acquire at least one image of the field of view, the control unit being configured to process the at least one image acquired by the imager (FIG. 1A, imaging camera 14),
at least one pattern comprising at least one linear part, the pattern being arranged to be overlapped, at least partially, by the liquid to be analyzed, when the well is filled, the reference image corresponding to at least one image of the pattern acquired without the support and a liquid overlapping said pattern (FIG. 3A shows a view of a pattern from pattern projection unit 12 overlapped by the liquid to be analyzed (liquid medicine 15) in the support (medicine container 16), as seen by imaging camera 14),
B. loading the support on the base of the device (FIG. 1A shows the medicine container 16 loaded on the placing unit 13), the at least one well of the support being positioned in the field of view (FIG. 3A shows that the medicine container 16 is within the field of view of the imaging camera 14),
C. acquiring at least one image of the field of view by the imager (the image from FIG. 3, for example),
D. sending the acquired image to the control unit (FIG. 1A, image processing unit 11),
E. determining the position of the pattern in the acquired image by:
E1. performing at least a plurality of first scans scanning along a first direction, said first scans being distributed in a direction different from the first direction (FIG. 3, scanning across each segment for how wide the stripes are and where they are shown)
E2. determining a plurality of coincidence descriptors representative of whether the first scans have crossed the linear part of the pattern (FIG. 3, determining how the stripes are arranged in each section),
E3. performing at least a plurality of second scans extending in the second direction and being distributed in the first direction apart from each other, said second scans scanning along the first direction (FIG. 3, determining where the stripes appear to shift from one pattern to another, indicating segments of the image, such as the nonoverlapped section, the top of the container, the top surface of the liquid, etc.),
E4. determining at least one line similarity descriptor showing if the second scans overlap at least partially the pattern (FIG. 3B, the segmentation of the image relies on comparing whether the pattern matches the part of the pattern not overlapped by medicine container 16 and liquid medicine 15),
F. assessing the presence of the liquid in the well of the support based on a percent index of visible pattern likelihood representative of the probability of the linear part of the pattern to be legible as expected in the field of view, the percent index of visible pattern likelihood being function of coincidence descriptors and line similarity descriptors (paragraph 60 describes performing the image matching based on the information from the reference image information and the imaged image information).
Regarding claim 3, Tojo teaches the detection method according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein in the substep E2, the control unit considers that the first scans have crossed the linear part of the pattern when the peaks of grey level of each first scan have the same coordinates and the same amplitude (FIG. 7B, the identification is based on where the bright lines are located within each segment in which they match).
Regarding claim 4, Tojo teaches the detection method according to claim l (as described above), wherein among the coincidence descriptors, there are position descriptors and amplitude descriptors (FIG. 8 shows an example of using colored patterns, so that the contrast (amplitude descriptors) of the patterns may be compared, in addition to the amount of distortion (position descriptors)).
Regarding claim 13, Tojo teaches a system for in vitro detection and/or quantification of at least one analyte in a biological sample (FIG. 1A, liquid medicine identification apparatus 10. Also see MPEP 2115), comprising:
a. an at least partially transparent or translucent support comprising at least one well configured to held a liquid (FIG. 1A, medicine container 16, configured to contain liquid medicine 15),
b. a device comprising: a base configured to receive at least one support (FIG. 1A, liquid medicine identification apparatus 10, which holds medicine container 16),
one control unit (FIG. 1A, image processing unit 11, described in paragraph 16),
one imager with a field of view, the imager being controlled by the control unit and being configured to acquire at least one image of at least one well of the support (FIG. 1A, imaging camera 14),
wherein the system comprises at least one pattern comprising at least one linear part and being intended to be overlapped, at least partially, by the liquid and in that the imager is configured to acquire at least one image of the field of view and in that the control unit is configured to determine the presence of the liquid in the well based on the at least one image acquired by the imager (FIG. 3A shows a view of a pattern from pattern projection unit 12 overlapped by the liquid to be analyzed (liquid medicine 15) in the support (medicine container 16), as seen by imaging camera 14) according to the detection method according to claim 1 (as described above).
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, 9, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tojo (US patent publication 20120127290).
Regarding claim 2, Tojo teaches the determination method according to claim 1 (as described above).
Tojo further teaches that at least one first scan is centered in the field of view (FIG. 5 shows a placing base 13a to center the medicine container 16, which is to be scanned, in the field of view).
Tojo portrays the direction of the linear pattern as vertical, such that horizontal scanning is necessary to determine where the lines are intersected, so does not explicitly teach that the first scans are scanning along a vertical direction, the first scans are performed at predetermined positions. Note, however, that the disclosed invention does not appear to rely on the vertical direction as claimed to coincide with a direction of gravity. Further, mere rearrangement of parts does not generally create a patentable distinction over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the detection method of Tojo by merely rotating the image of the medicine container 16 and pattern projector 12 so that the vertical direction corresponds to a direction orthogonal to the stripe pattern rather than to a direction of gravity.
Regarding claim 9, Tojo teaches the detection method according to claim 1 (as described above).
While Tojo does not explicitly teach at least one second scan is centered in the field of view, Tojo does teach a means to do so mechanically (FIG. 10, guiding rail 22, which moves the imaging camera 14 in a direction orthogonal to the lines of pattern projection unit 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the detection method of Tojo by moving the imaging camera into a position such that one of the second scans is centered in the field of view.
Tojo portrays the direction of the linear pattern as vertical, such that vertical scanning is necessary to trace a particular line for distortion, so Tojo does not explicitly teach that the second scans are scanning along a horizontal direction, the second scans are performed at predetermined positions. . Note, however, that the disclosed invention does not appear to rely on the horizontal direction claimed to be orthogonal to a direction of gravity. Further, mere rearrangement of parts does not generally create a patentable distinction over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the detection method of Tojo, as modified by Tojo, by merely rotating the image of the medicine container 16 and pattern projector 12 so that the horizontal direction corresponds to a direction of the stripe pattern and to a direction of gravity.
Regarding claim 14, Tojo teaches the system according to claim 13 (as described above).
While Tojo does not explicitly teach that the pattern is directly etched on the base of the device, it should be noted that claims to a product or system are limited by the product or system itself, even when claimed in terms of a process of manufacturing that product or system. See MPEP 2113.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Tojo by manufacturing the pattern projection unit 12 to produce light and dark patterns 12a by directly etching the patterns on the base of the device, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tojo (US patent publication 20120127290) in view of Pison (US patent publication 20130293706).
Regarding claim 15, Tojo teaches the system according to 13 (as described above).
Tojo does not explicitly teach that the imager is configured to acquired and decode an identification code of the support when framed in the field of view, the imager being configured to send the decoded identification code to the control unit.
In the same field of endeavor of identifying and reading patterns through media, Pison does teach that the imager is configured to acquired (FIG. 5, step S04) and decode (FIG. 5, step S05) an identification code (FIG. 2, identification pattern 32) of the support when framed in the field of view (FIG. 5, step S01, moving the camera), the imager being configured to send the decoded identification code to the control unit (FIG. 5, to determine if a decoding error occurred in step S07). By reading and decoding a pattern through the container, Pison is able to interpret whether there is something in the container causing decoding errors (FIG. 5, Interpretation section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the detection apparatus of Tojo with the pattern decoding of Pison in order to determine if the container has contents, such as opaque particles, that interfere with reading and decoding the pattern, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 10-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As described in more detail above and below, the closest prior of record is Tojo (US patent publication 20120127290), which is directed generally to a way of identifying a liquid in a container by imaging a linear pattern through the container and the liquid. While there are notable similarities between the imaging of patterns through liquid as taught by Tojo and as presently claimed, the disclosed invention analyzes the images in ways that are materially different from the analysis methods of Tojo, and the differences are particularly reflected in dependent claims 5-8 and 10-12, as addressed individually below.
Another prior art reference, Pison (US patent publication 20130293706), is generally directed to a way of identifying whether particles are present in a sample by imaging a pattern through the sample. Particles are detected insofar as they necessitate the use of data correction measures in the coded pattern or outright prevent the pattern from being read. Pison, however, does not appear to perform the analysis in the same manner as the claimed invention in terms of scans, gray levels, and scores based on particular kinds of descriptors.
Rossi (US patent publication 20180106788) teaches a device that performs optical analysis of samples in wells in a support, but does so via spectrometry, collecting light from the sample across a range of wavelengths and measuring the intensity at each wavelength by dispersing the light across a detector array. Rossi does not appear to be imaging a pattern through a sample and attempting to recognize particular features of the pattern based on gray levels as the claimed invention does. Recognizing peaks in an optical spectrum to identify a substance is different from recognizing gray level peaks in an image to determine if a sample is present or not.
Regarding claim 5, Tojo teaches the detection method according to claim 4 (as described above); however, the prior art, taken individually or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious that the position descriptors have an absolute position of a peak of a gray level of each scan across the linear pattern in a particular region as well as a relative position in terms of distances between those peaks in the manner claimed.
Tojo discusses segmenting the images and analyzing where the bright and dark parts of the pattern are, but in a manner that does not match the claimed method at this particular level of specificity. Pison and Rossi are similarly lacking.
Claim 6 depends on claim 5 and contains the allowable subject matter of claim 5.
If claim 7 is intended to depend on claim 5, then claim 7 contains the allowable subject matter of claim 5.
Otherwise, regarding claim 7, Tojo teaches the detection method according to claim 4 (as described above); however, the prior art, taken individually or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious that relative positions result from comparing locations of peaks of gray levels of the first scans with an average peak position and assigning a predetermined score or a score of 0 based on whether such a distance is within an expected range in the claimed manner.
Tojo discusses segmenting the images and analyzing where the bright and dark parts of the pattern are, as well as demonstrating the effect of container size and refractive index on how the pattern is distorted by the liquid, but does not describe comparing peak brightness positions to average positions in a manner matching the claimed method at this particular level of specificity. Pison and Rossi are similarly lacking.
Regarding claim 8, Tojo teaches the detection method according to claim 4 (as described above); however, the prior art, taken individually or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious that the amplitude descriptors are calculated for each peak of grey level as a sum across the scans of whether the peak is within a range in the manner claimed.
Tojo, Pison, and Rossi are all silent as to the claimed formula.
Regarding claim 10, Tojo teaches the detection method according to claim 1 (as described above); however, the prior art, taken individually or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious that the step of determining at least one similarity descriptor further comprises determining gray level functions or determining line similarity descriptors therefrom in the manner claimed
Tojo, Pison, and Rossi are all silent as to gray level functions and their uses.
Regarding claim 11, Tojo teaches the detection method according to claim 11 (as described above); however, the prior art, taken individually or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious normalizing an overall descriptor, nor the line similarity descriptors in the manner claimed.
Tojo, Pison, and Rossi are all silent as to normalizing such descriptors.
Claim 12 depends on claim 11 and contains the allowable subject matter of claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D SCHNASE whose telephone number is (703)756-1691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/PAUL SCHNASE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights