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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19 recites “generating, by an computing device” and this phrase should be amended to recite “generating, by a computing device” as “an computing device” appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wagner et al (US PGPub 2015/0276589) .
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding Claim 1, Wagner et al teaches a computerized microfluidic system for analyzing a component (illustrated in Figure 4), comprising: a. a flow chamber (referred to as sample chamber 405) containing a laminar flow of i) a reference liquid and ii) a sample liquid comprising the component in a medium (see [0079]); b. an optical source (referred to as mid-infrared laser source 401) configured to emit a light towards the component in the medium such that the light interacts with the component (see abstract and [0079]); c. an optical detector subsystem (referred to as detector subsystem 411) configured to measure the interacted light after interaction with the component (see abstract and [0079]); and d. a computing device (referred to as computing unit or controller (COMP UNIT) 413 ) communicatively coupled to the optical detector subsystem, and configured to generate outputs based on the interacted light (see abstract and [0079]).
Regarding Claim 2, Wagner et al teaches that the interacted light measured by the optical detector i.e. detector subsystem 411) comprises absorbed (i.e. directly transmitted light) and scattered light (see [0011], [0101] and [0103]).
Regarding Claim 3, Wagner et al teaches that the component comprises one or more concentrations of analytes (see [0015], [0049] and [0079]-[0080]).
Regarding Claim 4, Wagner et al teaches that the computing device is further configured to detect a position of the component in the medium (see [0079] and [0086]).
Regarding Claim 5, Wagner et al teaches that the computing device is further configured to derive one or more concentration values of analytes of the component based on the position of the component in the medium (see [0079]-[0080]).
Regarding Claim 6, Wagner et al teaches that the optical source is a quantum cascade laser (QCL) which emits the light of at least one wavelength (see [0017] and [0081]).
Regarding Claim 7, Wagner et al teaches that the computing device is further configured to control the QCL to alter a wavelength, a power, or a combination thereof of the light (see [0003], [0036] and [0090]).
Regarding Claim 8, Wagner et al teaches that the computing device is further configured to control the QCL to emit the light at one or more reference wavelengths, a peak absorption wavelength, or a combination thereof (see [0093] and [0121]).
Regarding Claim 9, Wagner et al teaches that the optical source emits the light of mid-infrared or THz range; wherein the light has at least one wavelength or multiple wavelengths; and wherein a number of wavelengths can be controlled (see [0017], [0081] and [0086]).
Regarding Claim 10, Wagner et al teaches that the optical detector subsystem comprises an alternating current (AC)-sensitive detector configured to measure the interacted light that is transmitted or scattered between the component and the medium at at least one wavelength (see [0049] and [0119]).
Regarding Claim 11, Wagner et al teaches that the AC-coupled detector is selected from the group consisting of a photon detector, a thermal detector such as a thermopile, and a photovoltaic detector such as a cooled or uncooled InGaAs or HgCdTe detectors (see [0013]).
Regarding Claim 12, Wagner et al teaches that the optic source is a single fixed-wavelength laser capable of interrogating a specific absorption peak of the component in the medium; and wherein when the emitted light is scanned between the component and the medium, the magnitude of the change detected by the optical detector allows for calculation of a characteristic of the component in the medium (see [0015]).
Regarding Claim 13, Wagner et al teaches a scanning system (referred to as motion scanning system (SCAN) 403) configured to scan the emitted light over the component, wherein the emitted light interacts with the component (see [0011] and [0079]).
Regarding Claim 14, Wagner et al teaches the computing system is further configured to control the scanning system to scan and descan the emitted light over the component (see [0079] and [0086]).
Regarding Claims 15-16, Wagner et al teaches a translation stage, wherein the flow chamber is disposed on top of the translation stage, wherein the translation stage is configured to allow for one-dimensional movement of the flow chamber and wherein the computing device is further configured to control the translational stage to move the flow chamber in-line with the light from the optical source (see [0086]).
Regarding Claim 17, Wagner et al teaches a guiding system (referred to as a mechanism for guiding interacted light) configured to guide the interacted light to the optical detector subsystem (see [0049]).
Regarding Claim 18, Wagner et al teaches a microfluidic system for analyzing a component (shown in Figures 4 and 5), comprising: a. an optical source (referred to as mid-infrared laser source 401) configured to emit a light towards the component in the medium such that the light interacts with the component (see abstract and [0079]); b. an optical detector subsystem (referred to as detector subsystem 411) configured to measure the interacted light after interaction with the component (see abstract and [0079]); c. a guiding system (referred to as a mechanism for guiding interacted light) configured to guide the interacted light to the optical detector subsystem (see [0049]); and d. a computing device (referred to as computing unit or controller (COMP UNIT) 413 ) communicatively coupled to the optical detector subsystem, and configured to generate outputs based on the interacted light (see abstract and [0079]).
Regarding Claim 19, Wagner et al teaches a method of analyzing a component, comprising:
emitting a light by an optical source (referred to as mid-infrared laser source 401) towards the component (see abstract and [0079]);
guiding the interacted light to an optical detector subsystem (referred to as detector subsystem 411) (see [0049] and [0079]);
detecting the interacted with the optical detector subsystem (referred to as detector subsystem 411) (see abstract and [0079]); and
generating, by a computing device (referred to as computing unit or controller (COMP UNIT) 413) communicatively coupled to the optical detector subsystem, outputs based on the interacted light (see [0079]).
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)(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) 1-9, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wagner et al (US PGPub 2012/0225475), hereinafter Wagner ‘475, cited on the IDS.
Regarding Claim 1, Wagner ‘475 teaches a computerized microfluidic system for analyzing a component (illustrated in Figure 14, [0099] and [0218]-[0220]), comprising: a. a flow chamber (referred to as chamber 1402)(see [0219]) containing a laminar flow of i) a reference liquid and ii) a sample liquid comprising the component in a medium (see [0106] and [0215]-[0219]); b. an optical source (referred to as Mid-IR quantum cascade lasers (QCLs), such as QCLs 1102) configured to emit a light towards the component in the medium such that the light interacts with the component (see abstract, [0099]), [0218]-[0219]; c. an optical detector subsystem (referred to as mid-IR detector(s) 1104) configured to measure the interacted light after interaction with the component (see [0118], [0213] and [0218] ); and d. a computing device (referred to as computing unit or controller) communicatively coupled to the optical detector subsystem, and configured to generate outputs based on the interacted light (see [0137], [0231] and [0437]).
Regarding Claim 2, Wagner ‘475 teaches that the interacted light measured by the optical detector i.e. mid-IR detector) comprises absorbed and scattered light ( [0011], [0134], [0159] and [0221]).
Regarding Claim 3, Wagner ‘475 teaches that the component comprises one or more concentrations of analytes (see [0107], [0110] and [0221]).
Regarding Claim 4, Wagner ‘475 teaches that the computing device is further configured to detect a position of the component in the medium (see [0237]-[0239]).
Regarding Claim 5, Wagner ‘475 teaches that the computing device is further configured to derive one or more concentration values of analytes of the component based on the position of the component in the medium (see [0237]-[0239]).
Regarding Claim 6, Wagner ‘475 teaches that the optical source is a quantum cascade laser (QCL) which emits the light of at least one wavelength ( see abstract, [0017] and [0099]).
Regarding Claim 7, Wagner ‘475 teaches that the computing device is further configured to control the QCL to alter a wavelength, a power, or a combination thereof of the light (see [0137] and [0218]).
Regarding Claim 8, Wagner ‘475 teaches that the computing device is further configured to control the QCL to emit the light at one or more reference wavelengths, a peak absorption wavelength, or a combination thereof (see [0230] and [0242]).
Regarding Claim 9, Wagner ‘475 teaches that the optical source emits the light of mid-infrared or THz range; wherein the light has at least one wavelength or multiple wavelengths; and wherein a number of wavelengths can be controlled (see [0099], [0189] and [0343]).
Regarding Claim 12, Wagner ‘475 teaches that the optic source is a single fixed-wavelength laser capable of interrogating a specific absorption peak of the component in the medium; and wherein when the emitted light is scanned between the component and the medium, the magnitude of the change detected by the optical detector allows for calculation of a characteristic of the component in the medium (see [0341]).
Regarding Claim 13, Wagner ‘475 teaches a scanning system (referred to as a scanner system) configured to scan the emitted light over the component, wherein the emitted light interacts with the component (see [0168] and [0216]).
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Micheels et al (US PGPub 2013/0256534).
Regarding Claim 1, Micheels et al teaches a computerized microfluidic system for analyzing a component (illustrated in Figure 1 as an analyzer) comprising: a. a flow chamber (referred to as sample holder system 130) containing a laminar flow of i) a reference liquid and ii) a sample liquid comprising the component in a medium (see [0049] and [0063]); b. an optical source (referred to as light source 100) configured to emit a light towards the component in the medium such that the light interacts with the component (see Figure 1 and [0048]); c. an optical detector subsystem (referred to optical spectrometer module 140 ) configured to measure the interacted light after interaction with the component (see [0049] and [0055]) ); and d. a computing device (referred to as computer or microprocessor system 160) communicatively coupled to the optical detector subsystem, and configured to generate outputs based on the interacted light (see [0049]-[0050] and [0055]).
Regarding Claim 3, Micheels et al teaches that the component comprises one or more concentrations of analytes (see [0013] and [0053]).
Regarding Claims 4-5, Micheels et al teaches that the computing device is further configured to detect a position (i.e. location) of the component in the medium (see [0050]), and that the computing device is further configured to derive one or more concentration values of analytes of the component based on the position of the component in the medium (see [0050]).
Regarding Claims 13-14, Micheels et al teaches a scanning system configured to scan the emitted light over the component, wherein the emitted light interacts with the component and that the computing system is further configured to control the scanning system to scan and descan the emitted light over the component (see [0050]).
Regarding Claims 15-16, Micheels et al teaches a translation stage, wherein the flow chamber is disposed on top of the translation stage, wherein the translation stage is configured to allow for one-dimensional movement of the flow chamber and wherein the computing device is further configured to control the translational stage to move the flow chamber in-line with the light from the optical source (see [0055] and [0062]).
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) 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micheels et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Axelrod et al (US PGPub 2015/0099274).
Regarding Claims 6-8, Micheels et al does not teach the optical source is a quantum cascade laser (QCL) which emits the light of at least one wavelength, and wherein the computing device is further configured to control the QCL to alter a wavelength, a power, or a combination thereof of the light and also configured to control the QCL to emit the light at one or more reference wavelengths, a peak absorption wavelength, or a combination thereof.
However, in the analogous art of optical systems for determining concentrations, Axelrod et al teaches an optical system with a control system 30 (e.g. controller), which is connectable to the optical system, i.e. to the light source 12 and to the detection module 15. The controller 30 is configured and operable for operating the light source 12 to emit light in the selected at least first and second wavelengths, and for receiving and analyzing measured/detected data/signals from the detection module and generating data indicative of a concentration of the metabolic gas in the region of interest (see [0075]). In addition, Axelrod et al teaches that the light source the light source 12 is a tunable IR light source/laser. In particular the light source may be selected to be tunable within a certain wavelength band in the mid-IR regime (the term mid-IR is used herein to designate wavelengths of light in the spectral range of 3 to 30 microns. In some particular embodiments of the system 10 of the present invention the tunable quantum cascade laser (QCL) is used as the light source 12, since it provides wide wavelength tunability and sufficiently narrow spectral width (sufficiently monochromatic light emission) (see [0039], [0051] and [0083]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Micheels et al by making the light source a tunable QCL for the benefit of providing wide wavelength tunability and sufficiently narrow spectral width (sufficiently monochromatic light emission) that is easily controllable by the computing unit.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Micheels et al and Axelrod et al teaches that optical source (specifically the tunable QCL, taught in Axelrod) emits the light of mid-infrared or THz range; wherein the light has at least one wavelength or multiple wavelengths; and wherein a number of wavelengths can be controlled (see [0039], [0080] and [0083] of Axelrod et al).
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micheels et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sohn et al (US PGPub 2014/0299521).
Regarding Claim 10, Micheels et al does not explicitly disclose that the optical detector subsystem comprises an alternating current (AC)-sensitive detector configured to measure the interacted light that is transmitted or scattered between the component and the medium at at least one wavelength.
However, in the analogous art of particle detection devices, Sohn et al teaches a detector which may utilize either AC or DC current. For embodiments of the detector that use AC current, the phase as well as the current may be measured and this technique may facilitate the differentiation between particles based on charge (see [0073[). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an AC-sensitive detector as the optical detector for the benefit of facilitating the differentiation between particles based on charge as the phase is able top also be measured.
Regarding Claim 11, Micheels et al and Sohn et al teaches that the AC-coupled detector may be a cooled or uncooled InGaAs detector (see [0048]-[0050]).
Claim(s) 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micheels et al in view of Akiyama et al (US PGPub 2014/0008541).
Regarding Claim 17, Micheels et al teaches the system of claim 1, but does not teach a guiding system configured to guide the interacted light to the optical detector subsystem.
However, in the analogous art of total reflection measurement methods, Akiyama et al teaches that the detection unit 4 for detecting the terahertz wave T is constituted by a quarter wave plate 41, a polarizer 42, a pair of photodiodes 43, 43, a differential amplifier 44, and a lock-in amplifier 47, for example. The probe light 49 reflected by the terahertz-wave detector 33 is guided by the mirror 45 toward the detection unit 4, converged by a lens 46, so as to be transmitted through the quarter wave plate 41, and then separated by the polarizer 42, which is a Wollaston prism or the like, into vertical and horizontal linearly polarized light components. The vertical and horizontal linearly polarized light components are converted into their respective electric signals by the pair of photodiodes 43, 43, while the difference therebetween is detected by the differential amplifier 44. The output signal from the differential amplifier 44 is amplified by the lock-in amplifier 47 and then fed to the data analyzer 6 (see [0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a mirror (i.e. a guiding system, as taught by Akiyama et al) within the system of Micheels et al for the benefit of effectively guiding THz light towards the optical detector.
Regarding Claim 18, Micheels et al teaches a computerized microfluidic system for analyzing a component (illustrated in Figure 1 as an analyzer) comprising: a.) an optical source (referred to as light source 100) configured to emit a light towards the component in the medium such that the light interacts with the component (see Figure 1 and [0048]); b. an optical detector subsystem (referred to optical spectrometer module 140 ) configured to measure the interacted light after interaction with the component (see [0049] and [0055]) ); and c. a computing device (referred to as computer or microprocessor system 160) communicatively coupled to the optical detector subsystem, and configured to generate outputs based on the interacted light (see [0049]-[0050] and [0055]).
Micheels et al does not teach a guiding system configured to guide the interacted light to the optical detector subsystem.
However, in the analogous art of total reflection measurement methods, Akiyama et al teaches that the detection unit 4 for detecting the terahertz wave T is constituted by a quarter wave plate 41, a polarizer 42, a pair of photodiodes 43, 43, a differential amplifier 44, and a lock-in amplifier 47, for example. The probe light 49 reflected by the terahertz-wave detector 33 is guided by the mirror 45 toward the detection unit 4, converged by a lens 46, so as to be transmitted through the quarter wave plate 41, and then separated by the polarizer 42, which is a Wollaston prism or the like, into vertical and horizontal linearly polarized light components. The vertical and horizontal linearly polarized light components are converted into their respective electric signals by the pair of photodiodes 43, 43, while the difference therebetween is detected by the differential amplifier 44. The output signal from the differential amplifier 44 is amplified by the lock-in amplifier 47 and then fed to the data analyzer 6 (see [0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a mirror (i.e. a guiding system, as taught by Akiyama et al) within the system of Micheels et al for the benefit of effectively guiding THz light towards the optical detector.
Regarding Claim 19, Micheels et al teaches emitting a light by an optical source (i.e. light source 100) towards the component (see [0048]); detecting the interacted light with the optical detector subsystem (i.e. optical spectrometer module 140) (see [0049]-[0050]); and generating, by a computing device (i.e. computer or microprocessor system 160) communicatively coupled to the optical detector subsystem, outputs based on the interacted light (see [0049]-[0050]).
Micheels et al does not teach guiding the interacted light to an optical detector subsystem.
However, in the analogous art of total reflection measurement methods, Akiyama et al teaches that the detection unit 4 for detecting the terahertz wave T is constituted by a quarter wave plate 41, a polarizer 42, a pair of photodiodes 43, 43, a differential amplifier 44, and a lock-in amplifier 47, for example. The probe light 49 reflected by the terahertz-wave detector 33 is guided by the mirror 45 toward the detection unit 4, converged by a lens 46, so as to be transmitted through the quarter wave plate 41, and then separated by the polarizer 42, which is a Wollaston prism or the like, into vertical and horizontal linearly polarized light components. The vertical and horizontal linearly polarized light components are converted into their respective electric signals by the pair of photodiodes 43, 43, while the difference therebetween is detected by the differential amplifier 44. The output signal from the differential amplifier 44 is amplified by the lock-in amplifier 47 and then fed to the data analyzer 6 (see [0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a mirror (i.e. a guiding system, as taught by Akiyama et al) within the system of Micheels et al for the benefit of effectively guiding THz light towards the optical detector.
Claim(s) 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micheels et al in view of Kataoka et al (US PGPub 2015/0276708).
Regarding Claim 17, Micheels et al teaches the system of claim 1, but does not teach a guiding system configured to guide the interacted light to the optical detector subsystem.
However, in the analogous art of cell observation systems, Kataoka et al teaches a light-guiding optical system 41, which is constructed as an optical system which can guide the two-dimensional optical image from the microplate 20 and sample S to the imaging device 45 and the excitation light from the excitation light source 43 to the sample S. For example, such an optical system can be constructed by using a dichroic mirror which transmits therethrough the fluorescence from the microplate 20 and reflects the excitation light from the excitation light source 43. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a light guiding optical system 41 (as taught by Kataoka et al) within the system of Micheels et al for the benefit of effectively guiding optical images to the optical detector subsystem.
Regarding Claim 18, Micheels et al teaches a computerized microfluidic system for analyzing a component (illustrated in Figure 1 as an analyzer) comprising: a.) an optical source (referred to as light source 100) configured to emit a light towards the component in the medium such that the light interacts with the component (see Figure 1 and [0048]); b. an optical detector subsystem (referred to optical spectrometer module 140 ) configured to measure the interacted light after interaction with the component (see [0049] and [0055]) ); and c. a computing device (referred to as computer or microprocessor system 160) communicatively coupled to the optical detector subsystem, and configured to generate outputs based on the interacted light (see [0049]-[0050] and [0055]).
Micheels et al does not teach a guiding system configured to guide the interacted light to the optical detector subsystem.
However, in the analogous art of cell observation systems, Kataoka et al teaches a light-guiding optical system 41, which is constructed as an optical system which can guide the two-dimensional optical image from the microplate 20 and sample S to the imaging device 45 and the excitation light from the excitation light source 43 to the sample S. For example, such an optical system can be constructed by using a dichroic mirror which transmits therethrough the fluorescence from the microplate 20 and reflects the excitation light from the excitation light source 43. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a light guiding optical system 41 (as taught by Kataoka et al) within the system of Micheels et al for the benefit of effectively guiding optical images to the optical detector subsystem.
Regarding Claim 19, Micheels et al teaches emitting a light by an optical source (i.e. light source 100) towards the component (see [0048]); detecting the interacted light with the optical detector subsystem (i.e. optical spectrometer module 140) (see [0049]-[0050]); and generating, by a computing device (i.e. computer or microprocessor system 160) communicatively coupled to the optical detector subsystem, outputs based on the interacted light (see [0049]-[0050]).
Micheels et al does not teach guiding the interacted light to an optical detector subsystem.
However, in the analogous art of cell observation systems, Kataoka et al teaches a light-guiding optical system 41, which is constructed as an optical system which can guide the two-dimensional optical image from the microplate 20 and sample S to the imaging device 45 and the excitation light from the excitation light source 43 to the sample S. For example, such an optical system can be constructed by using a dichroic mirror which transmits therethrough the fluorescence from the microplate 20 and reflects the excitation light from the excitation light source 43. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a light guiding optical system 41 (as taught by Kataoka et al) within the system of Micheels et al for the benefit of effectively guiding optical images to the optical detector subsystem.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER WECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-1109. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM - 6 PM EST M-F.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at 571-272-1254. 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.
/JENNIFER WECKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797