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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/6/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the combination of Sadabadi and Haueter fails to teach “at least one camera, the at least one camera being positioned to view the first optical feature and thereby capture images of the first optical feature and a processor, the processor configured to: process images captured by the at least one camera, and determine a pressure of fluid in the fluid path at the first location using at least deformation of the first flexible membrane along the lateral dimension as indicated in one or more of the images captured by the at least one camera”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Haueter teaches at least one camera (Fig.7, 10), the at least one camera being positioned to view the first optical feature and thereby capture images of the first optical feature (Paragraph 67) and a processor (Paragraph 67, “an electronic evaluation system”), the processor configured to: process images captured by the at least one camera, and determine a pressure of fluid in the fluid path at the first location using at least deformation of the first flexible membrane along the lateral dimension as indicated in one or more of the images captured by the at least one camera (Paragraph 67).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the Office’s allegation that “incorporating Haueter’s elements 13 onto Sadabadi’s membrane…would increase accuracy of Sadabadi’s system” does not explain how or why the perceived advantage that the Office envisions (increasing accuracy) would supposedly result from the proposed modification; and there is nothing in the cited references to indicate that modifying Sadabadi in the proposed manner would have achieved the perceived advantage or otherwise improved Sadabadi in any way.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Haueter teaches “A transition has therefore been made to measuring the fluid pressure in the liquid path by an element which is acted upon by the fluid and transmits the fluid pressure or changes under the fluid pressure to a sensor, mechanically coupled to the element, which determines the compressive force transmitted by the element or a movement of the same to calculate the fluid pressure. Since, in most cases, the element which is in contact with the fluid is designed as a disposable article for hygiene reasons, but the sensor, on cost grounds, has to be used more than once, the known microdosing devices currently have the disadvantage that the accuracy of the pressure measurement decisively depends on the quality of the mechanical coupling between the element, which is in contact with the fluid, and the sensor, as a result of which, while the disposable articles are justifiably tolerated in terms of cost, a relatively great variation in the accuracy from measurement to measurement arises” and “The methods according to various embodiments of the present disclosure wherein the functional connection between the physical entity, which is operatively connected to the liquid in the liquid path, and the measuring means takes place without mechanical interaction such that the measuring inaccuracies, that are known from the prior art, in particular for the situation in which the measuring means are used more than once while the physical entity which is in contact with the liquid can be changed regularly as a disposable article, can be significantly reduced” in paragraphs 5 and 12, Haueter also teaches “In some embodiments, it is advantageous if the piston or the piston- or plate-shaped element is acted upon on one side directly by the liquid guided in the liquid path, since a change in pressure can thereby be converted directly and virtually without any loss into a change in form such that even small changes in pressure can be detected immediately and with a good degree of accuracy” and “In some embodiments, the electronic evaluation system is also or alternatively capable of correcting, for example, before the comparison of the determined change in form or of the calculated pressure value with a specified value, said change or value by a correction algorithm to correct the effect of certain disturbance variables, for example, to correct the effect of the ambient air pressure, the ambient temperature, mechanical deviations in position between the physical entity and the measuring means and/or to correct the effect of vibrations. Thus, the measuring accuracy and reliability of the device can be significantly increased” in paragraphs 30 and 39, therefore Haueter teaches membrane with elements 13 and camera 10 would increase accuracy of the measurement.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that in the rejections of claims 98 and 99, the Office has not even attempted to provide any reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have wanted to further modify Sabadabi based on Haueter’s alleged teachings.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Since the motivations to combine Sabadabi and Haueter for the rejections of claims 98-99 are the same as motivations to combine Sabadabi and Haueter for the rejection of claim 97, no need for additional motivations.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Sabadadi expressly discloses that “[n]o extra on-chip integration of optical or electronic components is required while simplifies the miniaturization, integration and handling.” Sabadadi, paragraph [0095]. Thus Sabadadi clearly considers its sensing apparatus to be an improvement over optical solutions. A person of ordinary skill in the art, having understood Sabadadi’s disclosure in its entirety, would have therefore been led away by Sabadadi’s own disclosure from integrating optical components.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in MPEP 2123 II, “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments”.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the Office’s proposed modification would improperly change the principle of operation of Sadabadi’s sensing apparatus.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The basic principle of operation of Sadabadi’s sensing apparatus is to measure the deformation of the membrane, and the measurement of the deformation of the membrane allows for a characteristic of the fluid, such as flow rate, or a biological or chemical characteristic, to be measured. The proposed modification (e.g. incorporate Haueter’s elements 13 onto Sadabadi’s membrane and incorporate Haueter’s camera 10 into Sadabadi’s measurement system) would still allow Sadabadi’s sensing apparatus to measure the deformation of the membrane, and use the deformation measurement to measure a characteristic of the fluid.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the Office’s attempt to reconstruct the claimed invention is clearly based on impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, Haueter teaches the optical measuring system is more accurate in paragraphs 5, 12, 30 and 30. Furthermore, 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).
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.
Claims 97 and 112-115 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadabadi et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20210129141) in view of Haueter et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20120065596).
Regarding claim 97, Sadabadi teaches an apparatus comprising: a fluid input port (Fig.2, inlet/outlet ports 112); a fluid output port (Fig.2, inlet/outlet ports 112); a fluid channel (Fig.2, 108), the fluid input port, the fluid output port, and the fluid channel together defining a fluid path, the fluid path to allow fluid to flow in from the fluid input port, through the fluid channel, and out through the fluid output port (Paragraph 85); a first flexible membrane (Fig.2, 106) positioned at a first location on the fluid path, the first flexible membrane defining a plane, a radial center, and a central axis extending perpendicularly relative to the plane at the radial center of the first flexible membrane, the first flexible membrane to deform along the central axis using at least the pressure of fluid in the fluid path at the first location, the first flexible membrane further to deform along a lateral dimension using at least a pressure of fluid in the fluid path at the first location, the lateral dimension being transverse to the central axis (Paragraphs 80-81 and 89); a first plate (Fig.2, 102), the fluid input port (Fig.2, inlet/outlet ports 112) passing through the first plate; a second plate (Fig.2, 200), the fluid output port (Fig.2, inlet/outlet ports 112) passing through the first plate, the first plate and the second plate cooperating to define the fluid channel (Fig.2, 108); the first flexible membrane (Fig.2, 106) being interposed between the first plate (Fig.2, 102) and the second plate (Fig.2, 200).
Sadabadi is silent about a first optical feature, the first optical feature to change a visual state in response to deformation of the first flexible membrane along the lateral dimension; and at least one camera, the at least one camera being positioned to view the first optical feature and thereby capture images of the first optical feature and a processor, the processor configured to: process images captured by the at least one camera, and determine a pressure of fluid in the fluid path at the first location using at least deformation of the first flexible membrane along the lateral dimension as indicated in one or more of the images captured by the at least one camera
Haueter teaches a first optical feature (Fig.7, 13), the first optical feature to change a visual state in response to deformation of the first flexible membrane along the lateral dimension (Paragraph 67); and at least one camera (Fig.7, 10), the at least one camera being positioned to view the first optical feature and thereby capture images of the first optical feature (Paragraph 67) and a processor (Paragraph 67, “an electronic evaluation system”), the processor configured to: process images captured by the at least one camera, and determine a pressure of fluid in the fluid path at the first location using at least deformation of the first flexible membrane along the lateral dimension as indicated in one or more of the images captured by the at least one camera (Paragraph 67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Haueter’s elements 13 onto Sadabadi’s membrane and incorporate Haueter’s camera 10 into Sadabadi’s measurement system because it would increase accuracy of Sadabadi’s system as taught by Haueter in paragraphs 5, 12, 30 and 30.
Regarding claim 112, Sadabadi teaches a method, comprising: observing deformation of a flexible membrane (Fig.2, 106), the flexible membrane being positioned along a fluid path (Fig.2, 108), the flexible membrane defining a plane, a radial center, and a central axis extending perpendicularly relative to the plane at the radial center of the flexible membrane, the flexible membrane deforming along the central axis using at least a pressure of fluid in the fluid path, the flexible membrane further deforming along a lateral dimension using at least the pressure of fluid in the fluid path, the lateral dimension being transverse to the central axis Paragraphs 80-81 and 89).
Sadabadi is silent about observing, via at least one camera, the observing including capturing images of an optical feature via the camera, the optical feature changing a visual state as the flexible membrane deforms along the lateral dimension; and determining, via a processor, the pressure of fluid in the fluid path using at least the observed change in visual state of the optical feature as captured in the images from the at least one camera.
Haueter teaches observing, via at least one camera (Fig.7, 10), the observing including capturing images of an optical feature via the camera, the optical feature changing a visual state as the flexible membrane deforms along the lateral dimension; and determining, via a processor, the pressure of fluid in the fluid path using at least the observed change in visual state of the optical feature as captured in the images from the at least one camera (Paragraph 67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Haueter’s elements 13 onto Sadabadi’s membrane and incorporate Haueter’s camera 10 into Sadabadi’s measurement system because it would increase accuracy of Sadabadi’s system as taught by Haueter in paragraphs 5, 12, 30 and 30.
Regarding claim 113, the combination of Sadabadi and Haueter teaches all the features of claim 112 as outlined above, Sadabadi further teaches adjusting, via the processor, a flow of fluid through the fluid path using at least the determined pressure of fluid in the fluid path (Abstract and paragrpahs 3-4).
Regarding claim 114, the combination of Sadabadi and Haueter teaches all the features of claim 112 as outlined above, Sadabadi further teaches an opening (Fig.2, there is an opening below membrane 106) being positioned over the flexible membrane, the flexible membrane deforming toward the opening (As shown in Fig.2), the opening having a radial center and a radial perimeter, the flexible membrane having an annular region (As shown in Fig.1, 106 has an annular region), the annular region being spaced radially outwardly relative to the radial perimeter (As shown in Figs. 1-2),
Sadabadi is silent about the determining including focusing on image data from the camera indicating lateral deformation of the flexible membrane within the annular region.
Haueter teaches the determining including focusing on image data from the camera indicating lateral deformation of the flexible membrane.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Haueter’s elements 13 and camera 10 onto Sadabadi’s membrane because it would increase accuracy of Sadabadi’s system.
The combination of Sadabadi and Haueter is silent about the lateral deformation of the flexible membrane is within the annular region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Haueter’s elements 13 onto the annular region of membrane, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 115, Sadabadi teaches an apparatus, comprising: a fluid processing assembly, the fluid processing assembly comprising: a fluid flow path (Fig.2, 108), a first working stage (Fig.2, 108 is narrower than flow in port, therefore changes flow rate of the fluid) along the fluid flow path, the first working stage to change a property of fluid flowing through the flow path, and a first pressure sensing stage positioned along the flow path, the first pressure sensing stage comprising: a first flexible membrane (Fig.2, 106) defining a first plane, a first radial center, and a first central axis extending perpendicularly relative to the first plane at the first radial center of the first flexible membrane, the first flexible membrane to deform along a first lateral dimension using at least a pressure of fluid in the fluid path, the first lateral dimension being transverse to the first central axis (Paragraphs 80-81 and 89).
Sadabadi is silent about a first optical feature, the first optical feature to change a visual state in response to deformation of the first flexible membrane along the first lateral dimension; at least one camera positioned to view the first optical feature and thereby capture images of the first optical feature; and a processor to determine a first pressure of fluid in the fluid path using at least deformation of the first flexible membrane along the first lateral dimension as indicated in one or more images captured by the at least one camera.
Haueter teaches a first optical feature, the first optical feature (Fig.7, 13) to change a visual state in response to deformation of the first flexible membrane along the first lateral dimension; at least one camera (Fig.7, 10) positioned to view the first optical feature and thereby capture images of the first optical feature; and a processor to determine a first pressure of fluid in the fluid path using at least deformation of the first flexible membrane along the first lateral dimension as indicated in one or more images captured by the at least one camera (Paragraph 67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Haueter’s elements 13 onto Sadabadi’s membrane because it would increase accuracy of Sadabadi’s system.
Claims 100-111 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadabadi et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20210129141) in view of Haueter et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20120065596) and Oosterbroek et al. (“A micromachined pressurerflow-sensor”, published in 1999, see attached publication).
Regarding claim 100, the combination of Sadabadi and Haueter teaches all the features of claim 97 as outlined above, the combination of Sadabadi and Haueter is silent about a second flexible membrane positioned at a second location on the fluid path, the second flexible membrane defining a plane, a radial center, and a central axis extending perpendicularly relative to the plane at the radial center of the second flexible membrane, the second flexible membrane to deform along the central axis of the second flexible membrane using at least a pressure of fluid in the fluid path at the second location, the second flexible membrane being further to deform along a lateral dimension using at least the pressure of fluid in the fluid path at the second location, the lateral dimension being transverse to the central axis of the second flexible membrane; and a second optical feature, the second optical feature to change a visual state in response to deformation of the second flexible membrane along the lateral dimension.
Oosterbroek teaches a second flexible membrane positioned at a second location on the fluid path, the second flexible membrane defining a plane, a radial center, and a central axis extending perpendicularly relative to the plane at the radial center of the second flexible membrane, the second flexible membrane to deform along the central axis of the second flexible membrane using at least a pressure of fluid in the fluid path at the second location, the second flexible membrane being further to deform along a lateral dimension using at least the pressure of fluid in the fluid path at the second location, the lateral dimension being transverse to the central axis of the second flexible membrane (As shown in Fig.1, a first flexible membrane on the left side and a second flexible membrane on the right side).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sadabadi’s device to have two flexible membranes because two membranes would measure pressure as well as volume flow-rate as taught by Oosterbroek.
The combination of Sadabadi, Haueter and Oosterbroek is silent about a second optical feature, the second optical feature to change a visual state in response to deformation of the second flexible membrane along the lateral dimension.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sadabadi’s device to have two flexible membranes and incorporate Haueter’s elements 13 onto the second flexible membrane to make a second optical feature, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), also it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977).
Regarding claim 101, the combination of Sadabadi, Haueter and Oosterbroek teaches all the features of claim 100 as outlined above, Sadabadi further teaches the first location on the fluid path being positioned between the fluid input port and the fluid channel (As shown in Fig.2).
Regarding claim 102, the combination of Sadabadi, Haueter and Oosterbroek teaches all the features of claim 100 as outlined above, Oosterbroek further teaches the second location on the fluid path being positioned between the fluid channel and the fluid output port (As shown in Fig.1, right membrane is between channel and flow out port).
Regarding claim 103, the combination of Sadabadi, Haueter and Oosterbroek teaches all the features of claim 101 as outlined above. The combination of Sadabadi, Haueter and Oosterbroek is silent about the at least one camera being further positioned to view the second optical feature and thereby capture images of the second optical feature.
However, Oosterbroek teaches two membranes (Fig.1), and Haueter teaches a first optical feature (Fig.7, 13), the first optical feature to change a visual state in response to deformation of the first flexible membrane along the lateral dimension (Paragraph 67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sadabadi’s device to have two flexible membranes and incorporate Haueter’s elements 13 onto the second flexible membrane to make a second optical feature, and use Haueter’s camera to view the second optical feature and thereby capture images of the second optical feature, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), also it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977).
Regarding claim 104, the combination of Sadabadi, Haueter and Oosterbroek teaches all the features of claim 103 as outlined above, the combination of Sadabadi, Haueter and Oosterbroek is silent about the at least one camera comprising a single camera that is positioned to simultaneously view the first and second optical features and thereby simultaneously capture images of the first and second optical features.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sadabadi’s device to have two flexible membranes and incorporate Haueter’s camera to simultaneously view the first and second optical features, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), also it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977).
Regarding claim 105, the combination of Sadabadi, Haueter and Oosterbroek teaches all the features of claim 103 as outlined above, the combination of Sadabadi, Haueter and Oosterbroek is silent about the processor configured to: determine a flow rate of fluid in the fluid path using at least deformation of the first flexible membrane along at least the lateral region of the first flexible membrane, and using at least deformation of the second flexible membrane along at least the lateral region of the second flexible membrane, as indicated in one or more images of the captured by the at least one camera.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sadabadi’s device to have two flexible membranes and use Haueter’s camera and processor to determine a flow rate using deformation of both flexible membrane, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), also it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977).
Regarding claim 106, the combination of Sadabadi, Haueter and Oosterbroek teaches all the features of claim 103 as outlined above, Sadabadi further teaches the processor being further to communicate one or more control signals to change the flow rate of fluid in the fluid path using at least the determined flow rate (Abstract and paragrpahs 3-4).
Regarding claim 107, the combination of Sadabadi, Haueter and Oosterbroek teaches all the features of claim 100 as outlined above, Haueter further teaches the processor configured to: determine a first pressure of fluid in the fluid path using at least deformation of the first flexible membrane along the lateral dimension as indicated in one or more images captured by the at least one camera (Paragraph 67).
The combination of Sadabadi, Haueter and Oosterbroek is silent about determine a second pressure of fluid in the fluid path using at least deformation of the second flexible membrane along the lateral dimension as indicated in one or more images captured by the at least one camera.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Sadabadi’s device to have two flexible membranes and incorporate Haueter’s camera to detect a second pressure of fluid, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), also it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977).
Regarding claim 108, the combination of Sadabadi, Haueter and Oosterbroek teaches all the features of claim 107 as outlined above, the combination of Sadabadi, Haueter and Oosterbroek is silent about determine whether a fault condition exists using at least the first pressure or the second pressure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use at least the first pressure or the second pressure to determine whether a fault condition exists, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 109, the combination of Sadabadi, Haueter and Oosterbroek teaches all the features of claim 107 as outlined above, Oosterbroek further teaches a working stage along the fluid path, the working stage to change a property of fluid flowing through the fluid path (Fig.1, “Channel” is a working stage, it is narrower than flow in port, therefore changes flow rate of the fluid).
Regarding claim 110, the combination of Sadabadi, Haueter and Oosterbroek teaches all the features of claim 109 as outlined above, Oosterbroek further teaches the first location (Fig.1, left side membrane) on the fluid path being positioned upstream of the working stage (Fig.1, “Channel” is a working stage), the first flexible membrane to deform along the lateral dimension using at least the first pressure of fluid in the fluid path upstream of the first working stage (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 111, the combination of Sadabadi, Haueter and Oosterbroek teaches all the features of claim 109 as outlined above, Oosterbroek further teaches the second location (Fig.1, right side membrane) on the fluid path being positioned downstream of the working stage (Fig.1, “Channel” is a working stage), the second flexible membrane to deform along the lateral dimension using at least the second pressure of fluid in the fluid path downstream of the working stage (Fig.1).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 XIN Y ZHONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3798. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/XIN Y ZHONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855