DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The examiner is aware of co-pending application 18/272,198 which contains similar claims. A non-statutory double patenting rejection and/or a non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is likely appropriate for the instant application over co-pending application 18/272,198; however, since allowable subject matter has not yet been reached, the examiner withholds making such a double patenting rejection at this time.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The response, filed 03/25/2026, has been entered. Claims 1-29 are pending with claims 1, 20, 25, and 29 being amended. “If applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, the examiner should clearly indicate in the next Office action that the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate.” See MPEP 2144.03 C. As such, the two assertions by the examiner are now admitted prior art (APA), the two assertions being: “it is well-known to use lenses to focus light from either a laser or LED for producing Moire patterns”; and “it is common to carry out a method using a computer with a processor which executes instructions on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, the instructions being the method”. The previous 112d rejection of claim 20 is withdrawn due to amendment. Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 1-28 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive. Applicant’s argument regarding claim 29 has been fully considered but is moot due to a new grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment. It is noted that the amendment to claim 25 necessitated removing the prior art rejections aside from the one in which claim 25 depends upon claim 1.
On page 9 of the response, applicant argues that Horowitz fails to teach measuring shear stress in two dimensions. In response, the examiner notes that it is the combination of Horowitz and Johansen, not Horowitz alone, which is relied upon as rendering obvious the two-dimensional sensor. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore the examiner finds the aforementioned argument unpersuasive.
On page 9 of the response, applicant argues that the examiner’s combination is hindsight reconstruction. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Therefore the examiner finds the aforementioned argument unpersuasive.
On pages 9-10 of the response, applicant argues that Johansen fails to teach Moire fringe patterns. In response, the examiner notes, without acquiescing to applicant’s argument regarding Johansen, that it is Horowitz who is relied upon as explicitly teaching Moire fringe patterns. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore the examiner finds the aforementioned argument unpersuasive.
On page 10 of the response, applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine Horowitz and Johansen and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined them. In response, the examiner notes that the motivation was clearly given which is to sense shear in two dimensions. Further, the modification / combination is a simple one with every expectation of success. Horowitz teaches a Moire pattern used to detect movement in only one direction. Johansen teaches (e.g., FIG. 7) a diffractive pattern pair that can only sense movement in one direction and a second diffractive pattern pair, which is merely rotated 90 degrees, such that movement can be sensed in two directions. Merely duplicating the structure of Horowitz which results in the Moire pattern and rotating it 90 degrees is obvious with a clear expectation of success. Specifically, if one were to clone the device of Horowitz, rotate the clone 90 degrees, then it would detect movement in the perpendicular direction. Thus there is a clear expectation of success. Johansen (e.g., FIG. 7 and FIG. 17) merely provides the details of how multiple 1-dimensional movement sensors may be combined (i.e., at least one in a first orientation and at least another in a second, 90° orientation) with two-dimensional, planar freedom (e.g., FIG. 17) to yield a two dimensional sensor. Therefore the examiner finds the aforementioned argument unpersuasive.
On pages 10-11 of the response, applicant argues the newly added limitations of claim 29. These are addressed in the modified / new grounds of rejection below, necessitated by amendment. Therefore the examiner finds the aforementioned argument unpersuasive.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-11, 15-25, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horowitz et al. (US 20110032512 A1, prior art of record) in view of Johansen et al. (US 20190154726 A1, prior art of record).Regarding claim 1:Horowitz teaches (e.g., FIGS. 3-4) a one-dimensional wall shear stress sensor comprising:
a fixed substrate ([0030]-[0032]) supporting a first optical grating ([0030]-[0032]); a floating substrate ([0030]-[0032]) supporting a second optical grating superimposed over the first optical grating ([0030]-[0032]) to form a Moire fringe pattern comprising at least a first Moire fringe pattern extending in a first direction ([0030]-[0032]), wherein the floating substrate is displaceable relative to the fixed substrate in response to a wall shear stress imparted on the sensor (e.g., abstract; [0029]-[0032]), wherein displacement of the floating substrate correlates with a phase shift in the first Moire fringe pattern (e.g., abstract); an incident light source configured to illuminate the plurality of Moire fringe pattern ([0029]-[0032]); and a first photodetector system configured to detect intensity of light reflected from the first Moire fringe pattern (e.g., abstract, [0032]-[0034])Horowitz fails to teach:
a two-dimensional wall shear stress sensor; a plurality of first gratings and a plurality of second gratings; a plurality of Moire fringe patterns including first and second Moire fringe patterns extending in different directions; and a second photodetector system configured to detect intensity of light reflected from the second Moire fringe patternJohansen teaches:
a two-dimensional wall shear stress sensor; a plurality of first gratings and a plurality of second gratings (e.g., FIGS. 6-7; [0040]-[0042]); a plurality of Moire fringe patterns including first and second Moire fringe patterns extending in different directions (e.g., FIGS. 6-7; [0040]-[0042]); and a second photodetector system configured to detect intensity of light reflected from the second Moire fringe pattern (e.g., [0013], [0102], [0125])(The examiner notes that [0042] explicitly discloses that the X and Y measuring gratings may be placed on the same top and bottom surfaces, providing measurements of two-dimensional shear. Also see FIGS. 11 and 13-17.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a plurality of first and second gratings to form multiple Moire fringe patterns, said patterns extending in different directions (i.e., duplicating parts of Horowitz but including orthogonal patterns/sensing and allowing movement of the floating substrate in at least two directions), as taught by Johansen, in the device of Horowitz, to allow for a single device that senses shear in two different dimensions.
Regarding claim 2:Horowitz and Johansen teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Horowitz and Johansen teach:
wherein each optical grating in the second plurality of optical gratings overlaps a corresponding optical grating in the first plurality of optical gratings(As cited in the claim 1 rejection above, each of Horowitz and Johansen teaches that the grating pairs overlap.)
Regarding claim 3:Horowitz and Johansen teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Johansen teaches:
wherein the floating substrate is displaceable relative to the fixed substrate in the first direction and the second direction(The examiner notes that [0042] explicitly discloses that the X and Y measuring gratings may be placed on the same top and bottom surfaces, providing measurements of two-dimensional shear. Also see FIGS. 11 and 13-17.)
Regarding claim 4:Horowitz and Johansen teach all the limitations of claim 3, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Horowitz and Johansen teach:
wherein displacement of the floating substrate in the first direction correlates with a phase shift of the first Moire fringe pattern, and displacement of the floating substrate in the second direction correlates with a phase shift of the second Moire fringe pattern(See the sections cited in the claim 1 rejection above. Also see Johansen - [0039], in addition to the already cited sections of [0040]-[0042])
Regarding claim 5:Horowitz and Johansen teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Horowitz and Johansen teach:
wherein the floating substrate is suspended relative to the fixed substrate by at least one micro-spring(Horowitz - elements 180; Johansen - springs shown in FIGS. 11 and 13-17.)
Regarding claim 6:Horowitz and Johansen teach all the limitations of claim 5, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Johansen teaches:
wherein the at least one micro-spring is configured to allow displacement of the floating element with respect to the fixed substrate in both the first direction and second direction in response to an applied wall shear stress([0039]-[0042]; FIGS. 11 and 13-17)
Regarding claim 7:Horowitz and Johansen teach all the limitations of claim 5, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Johansen teaches:
wherein the at least one micro-spring comprises a serpentine micro-spring or a clamped micro-spring([0039]-[0042]; FIGS. 11 and 13-17)
Regarding claim 8:Horowitz and Johansen teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Horowitz and Johansen teach:
wherein the incident light source is configured to illuminate a first discrete location and a second discrete location on each of the first and second Moire fringe patterns(Johansen - [0039]-[0044], [0051], [0057]; FIG. 7. Also, consider Horowitz FIGS. 1 and 4 in view of the combination with Johansen.)
Regarding claim 9:Horowitz and Johansen teach all the limitations of claim 8, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Horowitz and Johansen teach or render obvious:
wherein the incident light source is configured to project a focussed light spot onto each discrete location(Johansen - [0039]-[0044], [0051], [0057], [0099], [0120]-[0121], [0125]; FIG. 7. Also, consider Horowitz FIGS. 1 and 4 in view of the combination with Johansen.)
The examiner also holds it as well-known in the art to focus the light onto discrete locations at diffraction gratings.
Regarding claim 10:Horowitz and Johansen teach or render obvious all the limitations of claim 9, as mentioned above.Horowitz and Johansen fail to explicitly teach:
wherein the focussed light spot is from order 1 micron to order 100 microns in diameter microns in diameter
However, the examiner holds that it is well-known in the art to focus the light onto discrete locations at diffraction gratings, and well-known to use light spots of 100 microns or less in diameter. Further, this may be interpreted as routine optimization. The smaller the gratings, spot size, and resolution of detection become, smaller detected movements may be measured.
Regarding claim 11:Horowitz and Johansen teach all the limitations of claim 8, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Horowitz and Johansen teach or render obvious:
wherein the incident light source comprises a first pair of light sources configured to illuminate the first and second discrete locations on the first Moire fringe pattern and a second pair of light sources configured to illuminate the first and second discrete locations on the second Moire fringe pattern(Johansen - [0039]-[0044], [0051], [0057], [0099], [0120]-[0121], [0125]; FIG. 7. Also, consider Horowitz FIGS. 1 and 4 in view of the combination with Johansen.)
Regarding claim 15:Horowitz and Johansen teach or render obvious all the limitations of claim 11, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Horowitz and Johansen teach or render obvious:
wherein the incident light source further comprises a fibre optic cable extending from each light source in the first and second pair of light sources to direct light towards a corresponding discrete location on the corresponding Moire fringe pattern(Horowitz - FIGS. 1 and 4, upon combination with Johansen. Johansen - e.g., [0125].)
Regarding claim 16:Horowitz and Johansen teach or render obvious all the limitations of claim 11, as mentioned above.Horowitz and Johansen fail to explicitly teach:
wherein the incident light source further comprises at least one optical lens positioned between the first and second pair of light sources and the first and second Moire fringe patterns, wherein the at least one optical lens is configured to focus light from the first and second pair of light sources onto corresponding discrete locations on the corresponding Moire fringe pattern
However, the examiner takes official notice, now APA, that it is well-known to use lenses to focus light from either a laser or LED for producing Moire patterns.
Regarding claim 17:Horowitz and Johansen teach all the limitations of claim 8, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Horowitz and Johansen teach:
wherein the incident light source is configured to provide constant illumination to each of the first and second discrete locations on each of the first and second Moire fringe patterns(Johansen - [0039]-[0044], [0051], [0057], [0099], [0120]-[0121], [0125]; FIG. 7. Also, consider Horowitz FIGS. 1 and 4 in view of the combination with Johansen.)
Regarding claim 18:Horowitz and Johansen teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Horowitz and Johansen teach:
wherein an output from each of the first and second (Johansen - e.g., [0013], [0102], [0125]) photodetector systems is indicative of detected light intensity (e.g., Horowitz - abstract)
Regarding claim 19:Horowitz and Johansen teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Horowitz and Johansen teach:
wherein the first photodetector system is configured to detect light having a first wavelength, and the second photodetector system is configured to detect light having a second wavelength different to the first wavelength(e.g., Johansen explicitly discloses that the diffractive elements may be different in that they reflect different wavelengths of light, allowing for the identity / position of the specific element to be known based on the differing wavelength and the use of multiple photodetectors - e.g., [0113]-[0115], [0125]. Also, Johansen teaches that a range of wavelengths may be used and, thus, the photodetectors may each detect light of differing wavelength.)
Regarding claim 20:Horowitz and Johansen teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Johansen teaches or renders obvious:
wherein at least one of the first and second photodetector systems comprises an optical filter(e.g., Johansen explicitly discloses that the diffractive elements may be different in that they reflect different wavelengths of light, allowing for the identity / position of the specific element to be known based on the differing wavelength and the use of multiple photodetectors - e.g., [0113]-[0115], [0125]. As such, some type of wavelength filter is inherent or rendered obvious.)
Regarding claim 21:Horowitz and Johansen teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Horowitz and Johansen teach:
wherein each of the first and second photodetector systems comprises at least one photodetector and an optical cable configured to transmit light reflected from the corresponding Moire fringe pattern to the photodetector(Horowitz - FIGS. 1 and 4; [0034]; and met upon combination with Johansen. Johansen - e.g., [0013], [0102], [0125].)
Regarding claim 22:Horowitz and Johansen teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Horowitz and Johansen teach:
wherein each of the first and second photodetector systems comprises a first photodetector and a second photodetector, wherein each photodetector is configured to detect light reflected from a different discrete location on the corresponding Moire fringe pattern(Horowitz - FIGS. 1 and 4; [0034]; and met upon combination with Johansen. Johansen - e.g., [0013], [0102], [0125].)
Regarding claim 23:Horowitz and Johansen teach all the limitations of claim 22, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Horowitz and Johansen teach:
wherein each of the first and second photodetector systems comprises an optical cable extending between each photodetector and a corresponding discrete location on the corresponding Moire fringe pattern(Horowitz - FIGS. 1 and 4; [0034]; and met upon combination with Johansen. Johansen - e.g., [0013], [0102], [0125].)
Regarding claim 24:Horowitz and Johansen teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Horowitz and Johansen teach:
wherein the wall shear stress sensor is a micro-electro-mechanical-system wall shear stress sensor(Horowitz - [0005]; Johansen - [0005], [0013], [0043])
Regarding claim 25:Horowitz and Johansen teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.
Horowitz and Johansen render obvious:
the system further comprising a processor, wherein the processor is configured to: receive a signal from the first and second photodetector systems indicative of detected light intensity at each Moire fringe pattern; analyse the received data to determine a shape and position of the first and second Moire fringe patterns; calculate, from the shape and position, a phase shift of the each of the first and second Moire fringe patterns; and determine, using the calculated phase shift, a displacement of the floating element with respect to the fixed substrate and a corresponding wall shear stress imparted on the sensor
The examiner takes official notice, now APA, that it is common to carry out a method using a computer with a processor which executes instructions on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, the instructions being the method.
As for the processor-implemented method recited in claim 25, this is met by the combination of Horowitz and Johansen, as set forth in the claim 1 rejection above.
Regarding claim 26:Horowitz and Johansen teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Horowitz and Johansen teach:
a method of using the sensor of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above), the method comprising: analysing the detected light intensities from each photodetector system to determine a shape and position corresponding to the first and second Moire fringe patterns; calculating, from the shape and position, a phase shift of each of the first and second Moire fringe patterns; and determining, using the calculated phase shift, a displacement of the floating element with respect to the substrate and a corresponding wall shear stress imparted on the sensor
The instant method is merely the manner in which the device of Horowitz and Johansen is operated to yield the 2D shear stress output.
Regarding claim 27:Horowitz and Johansen teach all the limitations of claim 26, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Horowitz and Johansen render obvious:
a computing device comprising a processor configured to carry out the method according to claim 26
The examiner takes official notice, now APA, that it is common to carry out a method using a computer with a processor which executes instructions on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, the instructions being the method.
Regarding claim 28:Horowitz and Johansen teach all the limitations of claim 26, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Horowitz and Johansen render obvious:
a machine-readable storage medium storing a computer program comprising instructions arranged, when executed, to implement the method of claim 26
The examiner takes official notice, now APA, that it is common to carry out a method using a computer with a processor which executes instructions on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, the instructions being the method.
Regarding claim 29:Horowitz teaches a one dimensional wall shear stress sensor comprising:
a first optical grating ([0030]-[0032]); a second optical grating ([0030]-[0032]) overlapping the first optical grating such that the first optical grating and second optical grating form a Moire fringe pattern (abstract, [0030]-[0032]), wherein the second optical grating is displaceable relative to the first optical grating in response to a wall shear stress imparted on the sensor (abstract, [0030]-[0032]), and wherein displacement of the second optical grating correlates with a phase shift in the Moire fringe pattern (abstract, [0030]-[0032], [0034]); an incident light source (e.g., FIG. 4 - 410) configured to illuminate at least a first discrete location on the Moire fringe pattern; a first photodetector configured to detect light intensity reflected from the first discrete location (e.g., [0008]-[0009], [0034]); and a second photodetector (e.g., [0034])Horowitz fails to explicitly teach:
the light source configured to illuminate a second discrete location
wherein the incident light source comprises a pair of light sources configured to illuminate the first and the second discrete locationsJohansen teaches:
the light source configured to illuminate a second discrete location(e.g., FIG. 6 - [0041], [0044], [0059], [0069]-[0070], [0121], [0125])
wherein the incident light source comprises a pair of light sources configured to illuminate the first and the second discrete locations([0039]-[0044], [0051], [0057], [0099], [0120]-[0121], [0125]; FIG. 7)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention use a pair of light source and to illuminate multiple discrete locations, as taught by Johansen, in the device of Horowitz, to yield increased accuracy. Johansen teaches duplicate pairs of the diffractive / Moire pattern elements for one dimension. Johansen also teaches multiple diffractive / Moire pattern elements, each having elements of differing heights (e.g., FIG. 6), yet all for one dimensional detection. Each of these teachings independently meet the limitation regarding illumination of a second discrete location.
Regarding the limitation of “wherein the pair of light sources are configured to pulse such that one of the pair of light sources is on while the other of the pair of light sources is off”: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." See MPEP 2114 II. “A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” If the prior art structure is capable of (i.e., as the instant claim recites “configured to”) performing the function, then it meets the claim limitation. In this case, Johansen teaches a pair of light sources and each is “configured to” be on or off and, thus, the apparatus of Johansen is “configured to” have one light source on and the other off and vice versa.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horowitz et al. (US 20110032512 A1, prior art of record) in view of Johansen et al. (US 20190154726 A1, prior art of record) and further in view of Hao et al. (WO 2007129993 A1, prior art of record).Regarding claim 12:Horowitz and Johansen teach or render obvious all the limitations of claim 11, as mentioned above.Horowitz and Johnson fail to explicitly teach:
wherein the first pair of light sources are configured to emit light having a first wavelength and the second pair of light sources are configured to emit light having a second wavelength(Importantly, Johnson explicitly discloses that the diffractive elements may be different in that they reflect different wavelengths of light, allowing for the identity / position of the specific element to be known based on the differing wavelength - e.g., [0113].)Hao teaches:
wavelength multiplexing by sending differing wavelengths to different sensing elements to allow for identity / position of the specific element to be known based on the differing wavelength (e.g., FIGS. 6-12; abstract)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use different source wavelengths, as taught by Hao, instead of using different reflected/diffracted wavelengths, as taught by Johnson, in the device of Horowitz as it is an art-recognized equivalent way for wavelength multiplexing.
Regarding claim 13:Horowitz, Johansen, and Hao teach or render obvious all the limitations of claim 12, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 12 rejection above, Hao teaches:
wherein the first wavelength is different to the second wavelength (see claim 12 rejection above)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horowitz et al. (US 20110032512 A1, prior art of record) in view of Johansen et al. (US 20190154726 A1, prior art of record) and further in view of Singh et al. (US 20120293647 A1, prior art of record).Regarding claim 14:Horowitz and Johansen teach or render obvious all the limitations of claim 11, as mentioned above.Horowitz and Johansen fail to teach:
wherein each pair of light sources comprises a first and second light emitting diode (LED)Singh teaches:
wherein the Moire pattern light source is an LED ([0025], claim 11)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use LED(s) as the light source, as taught by Singh, in the device of Horowitz, to reduce cost and/or as it is an art-recognized equivalent light source. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a focused LED may be used instead.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights