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 .
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendment filed 12/18/2025 has been considered and entered.
The rejections under 35 USC 112 set forth in the office action mailed 09/23/2025 is withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to claims 1, 6, and 12, applicant has argued that “…Ohtsuka fails to disclose that "the optical path conversion assembly is further configured to: transmit the diffracted light of the second light beam, and is configured to converge the +1- order diffracted light to the output port", wherein "the optical path conversion assembly is configured to implement a deflection capability for the 0-order diffracted light that is different from a deflection capability for the +1-order diffracted light" and "the 0-order diffracted light is deviated from the output port" as recited by independent claim 1, as amended…”. However, examiner respectfully disagrees.
Ohtsuka discloses a path conversion assembly which “…condenses the respective wavelength components L21 to L23 after dispersion toward the corresponding output ports…” (See figure 1).
In addition, Ohtsuka discloses output ports 12a-d and a +1-order diffracted light A1. Ohtsuka discloses A1 as converging on output port 12b (See figure 10). Ohtsuka also discloses a 0-order diffracted light A0, which is disclosed as being deflected toward input port 11, not output ports 12a-d (See figure 10).
Thus, Ohtsuka discloses the limitations referenced above as applied to claims 1, 6, and 12.
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)(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.
(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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9, 12-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohtsuka (US 20140321796 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Ohtsuka discloses an optical processing apparatus, comprising an input port (Ohtsuka/Fig2/Input port 11), an optical path conversion assembly (Path conversion assembly defined by elements 13-16), a Liquid Crystal on Silicon (LCoS) assembly (LCOS assembly 17 [Paragraph 50/Lines 1-3]), and an output port (Output port 12a), wherein
the input port is configured to receive a first light beam;
the optical path conversion assembly is configured to disperse the first light beam to obtain a second light beam, wherein the second light beam is a single-wavelength light beam (Paragraph 47/Lines 1-3);
the LCoS assembly is configured to diffract the second light beam to obtain diffracted light of the second light beam, wherein the LCoS assembly includes a plurality of pixels (Paragraph 49/Lines 1-5) configured to diffract light beams at different diffraction angles (Fig9/Diffraction angles of A0, A1, and A2), the diffraction angles are usable to control an attenuation degree of the light beams received by the pixels, and the diffracted light of the second light beam includes 0-order diffracted light and +1-order diffracted light (Paragraph 53);
the optical path conversion assembly is further configured to: transmit the diffracted light of the second light beam, and is configured to converge the +1-order diffracted light to the output port, wherein the optical path conversion assembly is configured to implement a deflection capability for the 0-order diffracted light is different from a deflection capability for the +1-order diffracted light (Paragraph 55) and the 0-order diffracted light is deviated from the output port (Fig10); and
the output port is configured to output the +1-order diffracted light in a collimated manner (Paragraph 45).
Examiner’s note: Examiner notes that claim 1 and related dependent claims include functional limitations. When the structure recited in a reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. In other words, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (MPEP 2112.01 [R-07.2015]).
With regards to claim 2, Ohtsuka discloses the apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the optical path conversion assembly includes a first deflection component (Fig2/First deflection component 13), a second deflection component (Fig2/Second deflection component 16), and a demultiplexing/multiplexing component (Demultiplexing/Multiplexing component 15), the demultiplexing/multiplexing component being configured to disperse the first light beam passing through the first deflection component to obtain the second light beam (Paragraph 47/Lines 1-3), the second deflection component being configured for incidence of the second light beam into the LCoS assembly (Fig2), and deflection capabilities of the first deflection component and the second deflection component are different including deflection effects of the first deflection component and the second deflection component are different and/or deflection intensities of the first deflection component and the second deflection component are different,
wherein a first position and a second position on the second deflection component have different deflection capabilities for a same light beam (Figs9-10), the first position being an illumination position corresponding to the 0-order diffracted light on the second deflection component, and the second position being an illumination position corresponding to the +1-order diffracted light on the second deflection component (Paragraph 55/Equation 1); and/or
wherein a third position and a fourth position on the first deflection component have different deflection capabilities for a same light beam, the third position being an illumination position corresponding to the 0-order diffracted light on the first deflection component, and the fourth position being an illumination position corresponding to the +1-order diffracted light on the first deflection component.
With regards to claim 3, Ohtsuka discloses the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein
a deflection effect of the second deflection component on a light beam is a convergence effect (Paragraph 48), and curvature radii of the first position and the second position on the second deflection component are different (Fig12/Varying curvature of element 16), so that a deflection intensity of the second deflection component on the 0-order diffracted light is different from a deflection intensity on the +1-order diffracted light (Paragraph 53); and/or
a deflection effect of the first deflection component on a light beam is a convergence effect, and curvature radii of the third position and the fourth position on the first deflection component are different, so that a deflection intensity of the first deflection component on the 0-order diffracted light is different from a deflection intensity on the +1-order diffracted light.
With regards to claim 5, Ohtsuka discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a transmittance capability of the optical path conversion assembly for the +1-order diffracted light is higher than a transmittance capability for the 0-order diffracted light (Fig8b).
With regards to claim 6, Ohtsuka discloses an optical processing apparatus, comprising an input port (Ohtsuka/Fig2/Input port 11), an optical path conversion assembly (Path conversion assembly defined by elements 13-16), a Liquid Crystal on Silicon (LCoS) assembly (LCOS assembly 17 [Paragraph 50/Lines 1-3]), and an output port (Output port 12a), wherein
the input port is configured to receive a first light beam (Paragraph 21/Lines 1-7);
the optical path conversion assembly is configured to disperse the first light beam to obtain a second light beam, wherein the second light beam is a single-wavelength light beam (Paragraph 47/Lines 1-3);
the LCoS assembly is configured to diffract the second light beam to obtain diffracted light of the second light beam, wherein the LCoS assembly includes a plurality of pixels (Paragraph 49/Lines 1-5) configured to diffract light beams at different diffraction angles, the diffraction angles are usable to control an attenuation degree of the light beams received by the pixels, and the diffracted light of the second light beam includes 0-order diffracted light and +1-order diffracted light (Paragraphs 53);
the optical path conversion assembly is further configured to: transmit the diffracted light of the second light beam, and converge the +1-order diffracted light to the output port, wherein the optical path conversion assembly is configured to implement a transmission capability for the +1-order diffracted light is higher than a transmittance capability for the 0-order diffracted light (Fig8b) and the 0-order diffracted light is deviated from the output port (Fig10); and
the output port is configured to output the +1-order diffracted light in a collimated manner (Fig2/Paragraph 45).
Examiner’s note: Examiner notes that claim 6 and related dependent claims include functional limitations. When the structure recited in a reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. In other words, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (MPEP 2112.01 [R-07.2015]).
With regards to claim 9, Ohtsuka discloses the apparatus according to claim 6, wherein a deflection capability of the optical path conversion assembly for the 0-order diffracted light is different from a deflection capability for the +1-order diffracted light (Paragraph 55).
With regards to claim 12, Ohtsuka discloses an optical system (Optical system 1A), configured to: process an input first light beam in frequency domain, and output a light beam obtained through processing, wherein the optical system comprises an optical processing apparatus, and the optical processing apparatus comprises an input port (Ohtsuka/Fig2/Input port 11), an optical path conversion assembly (Path conversion assembly defined by elements 13-16), a Liquid Crystal on Silicon (LCoS) assembly (LCOS assembly 17 [Paragraph 50/Lines 1-3]), and an output port (Output port 12a), wherein
the input port is configured to receive a first light beam;
the optical path conversion assembly is configured to disperse the first light beam to obtain a second light beam, wherein the second light beam is a single-wavelength light beam (Paragraph 47/Lines 1-3);
the LCoS assembly is configured to diffract the second light beam to obtain diffracted light of the second light beam, wherein the LCoS assembly includes a plurality of pixels (Paragraph 49/Lines 1-5) configured to diffract light beams at different diffraction angles, the diffraction angles are usable to control an attenuation degree of the light beams received by the pixels, and the diffracted light of the second light beam includes 0-order diffracted light and +1-order diffracted light (Paragraphs 53);
the optical path conversion assembly is further configured to: transmit the diffracted light of the second light beam, and is configured to converge the +1-order diffracted light to the output port, wherein the optical path conversion assembly is configured to implement a deflection capability for the 0-order diffracted light that is different from a deflection capability for the +1-order diffracted light (Paragraph 55) and the 0-order diffracted light is deviated from the output port (Fig10); and
the output port is configured to output the +1-order diffracted light in a collimated manner (Paragraph 45).
Examiner’s note: Examiner notes that claim 12 and related dependent claims include functional limitations. When the structure recited in a reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. In other words, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (MPEP 2112.01 [R-07.2015]).
With regards to claim 13, Ohtsuka discloses the optical system according to claim 12, wherein the optical path conversion assembly includes a first deflection component (Fig2/First deflection component 13), a second deflection component (Fig2/Second deflection component 16), and a demultiplexing/multiplexing component (Demultiplexing/Multiplexing component 15), the demultiplexing/multiplexing component being configured to disperse the first light beam passing through the first deflection component to obtain the second light beam (Paragraph 47/Lines 1-3), the second deflection component being configured for incidence of the second light beam into the LCoS assembly (Fig2), and deflection capabilities of the first deflection component and the second deflection component being different including deflection effects of the first deflection component and the second deflection component are different and/or deflection intensities of the first deflection component and the second deflection component are different,
wherein a first position and a second position on the second deflection component have different deflection capabilities for a same light beam, the first position being an illumination position corresponding to the 0-order diffracted light on the second deflection component, and the second position being an illumination position corresponding to the +1-order diffracted light on the second deflection component (Paragraph 55/Equation 1); and/or
wherein a third position and a fourth position on the first deflection component have different deflection capabilities for a same light beam, the third position being an illumination position corresponding to the 0-order diffracted light on the first deflection component, and the fourth position being an illumination position corresponding to the +1-order diffracted light on the first deflection component.
With regards to claim 14, Ohtsuka discloses the optical system according to claim 13, wherein
a deflection effect of the second deflection component on a light beam is a convergence effect (Paragraph 48), and curvature radii of the first position and the second position on the second deflection component are different (Fig12/Curvature of element 16), so that a deflection intensity of the second deflection component on the 0-order diffracted light is different from a deflection intensity on the +1-order diffracted light; and/or
a deflection effect of the first deflection component on a light beam is a convergence effect, and curvature radii of the third position and the fourth position on the first deflection component are different, so that a deflection intensity of the first deflection component on the 0-order diffracted light is different from a deflection intensity on the +1-order diffracted light.
With regards to claim 16, Ohtsuka discloses the optical system according to claim 12, wherein a transmittance capability of the optical path conversion assembly for the +1-order diffracted light is higher than a transmittance capability for the 0-order diffracted light (Fig8b).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtsuka (US 20140321796 A1) as applied to claim 2 above in view of Bueler (US 20100231783 A1).
With regards to claim 4, Ohtsuka discloses the apparatus according to claim 2, but is silent regarding a deflection effect of the first position on the second deflection component on a light beam being a divergence effect, and a deflection effect of the second position on the second deflection component on a light beam being a convergence effect; and/or a deflection effect of the third position on the first deflection component on a light beam being a divergence effect, and a deflection effect of the fourth position on the first deflection component on a light beam is a convergence effect. However, the practice of configuring a deflection component within an optical system such that a first position on the deflection component creates a divergence effect and the second position creates a convergence effect exists in the art as exemplified by Bueler. Ohtsuka and Bueler are considered to be analogous in the field of optical systems.
Bueler teaches an optical system wherein a deflection effect of a first position on a deflection component on a light beam is a divergence effect, and a deflection effect of a second position on the deflection component on a light beam is a convergence effect (Bueler/Fig5b/Deflection effects of element 521). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the second deflection component of Ohtsuka such that the first and second positions respectively created divergence and convergence effects as suggested by Bueler, since doing so would allow the second deflection component to selectively modify different orders of light by itself, without the need for additional, dedicated optical components.
Claims 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtsuka (US 20140321796 A1) as applied to claim 6 above in view of Yang (US 20060119941 A1).
With regards to claim 7, Ohtsuka discloses the apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the optical path conversion assembly includes a first deflection component (Fig2/First deflection component 13), a second deflection component (Fig2/Second deflection component 16), and a demultiplexing/multiplexing component (Demultiplexing/Multiplexing component 15), the demultiplexing/multiplexing component being configured to disperse the first light beam passing through the first deflection component to obtain the second light beam (Paragraph 47/Lines 1-3), and the second deflection component being configured for incidence of the second light beam into the LCoS assembly (Fig2). Ohtsuka discloses a suppressing component configured to suppress the 0-order diffracted light (Paragraph 64), but is silent regarding a suppression element being disposed on one or more of the first deflection component, the second deflection component, and the demultiplexing/multiplexing component, and the first suppression element being configured to suppress the 0-order diffracted light. However, the practice of configuring a suppression element within an optical system such that it is disposed on a deflection component exists in the art as exemplified by Yang. Ohtsuka and Yang are considered to be analogous in the field of optical systems.
Yang teaches an optical system wherein a suppression element is disposed on a deflection component (Yang/Fig2/Suppression element 352) the suppression element being configured to suppress the 0-order diffracted light (Fig3/Paragraph 77). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the optical system disclosed by Ohtsuka such that the suppression element was a spatial filter disposed on the first or second deflection components as suggested by Yang, since doing so would allow for easier control over which orders of diffracted light are suppressed.
With regards to claim 8, Ohtsuka and Yang together disclose the apparatus according to claim 7, wherein focal lengths of the first deflection component and the second deflection component are a first focal length, and a position of the first suppression element is determined based on the first focal length and an incidence angle of the second light beam on the LCoS assembly (Yang/Paragraph 77 [In conjunction with combination described in the rejection of claim 7]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtsuka (US 20140321796 A1) as applied to claim 13 above in view of Bueler (US 20100231783 A1).
With regards to claim 15, Ohtsuka discloses the optical system according to claim 13, but is silent regarding a deflection effect of the first position on the second deflection component on a light beam being a divergence effect, and a deflection effect of the second position on the second deflection component on a light beam being a convergence effect; and/or a deflection effect of the third position on the first deflection component on a light beam being a divergence effect, and a deflection effect of the fourth position on the first deflection component on a light beam is a convergence effect. However, the practice of configuring a deflection component within an optical system such that a first position on the deflection component creates a divergence effect and the second position creates a convergence effect exists in the art as exemplified by Bueler. Ohtsuka and Bueler are considered to be analogous in the field of optical systems.
Bueler teaches an optical system wherein a deflection effect of a first position on a deflection component on a light beam is a divergence effect, and a deflection effect of a second position on the deflection component on a light beam is a convergence effect (Bueler/Fig5b/Deflection effects of element 521). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the second deflection component of Ohtsuka such that the first and second positions respectively created divergence and convergence effects as suggested by Bueler, since doing so would allow the second deflection component to selectively modify different orders of light by itself, without the need for additional, dedicated optical components.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtsuka (US 20140321796 A1) as applied to claim 16 above in view of Yang (US 20060119941 A1).
With regards to claim 17, Ohtsuka discloses the optical system according to claim 16, wherein the optical path conversion assembly includes a first deflection component (Fig2/First deflection component 13), a second deflection component (Fig2/Second deflection component 16), and a demultiplexing/multiplexing component (Demultiplexing/Multiplexing component 15), the demultiplexing/multiplexing component being configured to disperse the first light beam passing through the first deflection component to obtain the second light beam (Paragraph 47/Lines 1-3), and the second deflection component being configured for incidence of the second light beam into the LCoS assembly (Fig2). Ohtsuka discloses a suppressing component configured to suppress the 0-order diffracted light (Paragraph 64), but is silent regarding a suppression element being disposed on one or more of the first deflection component, the second deflection component, and the demultiplexing/multiplexing component, and the first suppression element is configured to suppress the 0-order diffracted light. However, the practice of configuring a suppression element within an optical system such that it is disposed on a deflection component exists in the art as exemplified by Yang. Ohtsuka and Yang are considered to be analogous in the field of optical systems.
Yang teaches an optical system wherein a suppression element is disposed on a deflection component (Yang/Fig2/Suppression element 352) the suppression element being configured to suppress the 0-order diffracted light (Fig3/Paragraph 77). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the optical system disclosed by Ohtsuka such that the suppression element was a spatial filter disposed on the first or second deflection components as suggested by Yang, since doing so would allow for easier control over which orders of diffracted light are suppressed.
With regards to claim 18, Ohtsuka and Yang together disclose the optical system according to claim 17, wherein focal lengths of the first deflection component and the second deflection component are a first focal length, and a position of the first suppression element is determined based on the first focal length and an incidence angle of the second light beam on the LCoS assembly (Yang/Paragraph 77 [In conjunction with combination described in the rejection of claim 17]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtsuka (US 20140321796 A1) as applied to claim 16 above in view of Zong (US 9977190 B2).
With regards to claim 20, Ohtsuka discloses the apparatus according to claim 16, but is silent regarding an incidence angle of the second light beam on the LCoS assembly being greater than zero. However, the practice of configuring an LCoS assembly within an optical system such that a light beam is incident upon the LCoS assembly at an angle greater than zero exists in the art as exemplified by Zong. Ohsuka and Zong are considered to be analogous in the field of optical systems.
Zong teaches the incidence angle of a light beam on an LCoS assembly within an optical system as being greater than zero (Zong/Figs6-8 [LCoS panel is not perpendicular to the incident light]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the LCoS assembly within the apparatus disclosed by Ohtsuka such that the second light beam is incident upon the LCoS assembly at an angle greater than zero as suggested by Zong since doing so would further suppress intra-frequency crosstalk between output signals.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regards to claim 10, the prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the apparatus according to claim 9, wherein in response to a diffraction angle of the +1-order diffracted light on the LCoS assembly being equal to a first diffraction angle, the +1-order diffracted light has a lowest coupling loss in a process from being emitted from the LCoS assembly to being output by the output port in the collimated manner; a diffraction angle of the 0-order diffracted light on the LCoS assembly is less than the first diffraction angle, and a diffraction angle of the +1-order diffracted light on the LCoS assembly is greater than or equal to the first diffraction angle; or a diffraction angle of the 0-order diffracted light on the LCoS assembly is greater than the first diffraction angle, and a diffraction angle of the +1-order diffracted light on the LCoS assembly is greater than or equal to the first diffraction angle. The closest prior art was relied upon in the previous rejection.
Claim 11 inherits the allowability of claim 10 on which it depends.
With regards to claim 19, the prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the optical system according to claim 16, wherein in response to a diffraction angle of the +1-order diffracted light on the LCoS assembly being equal to a first diffraction angle, the +1-order diffracted light has a lowest coupling loss in a process from being emitted from the LCoS assembly to being output by the output port in the collimated manner; a diffraction angle of the 0-order diffracted light on the LCoS assembly is less than the first diffraction angle, and a diffraction angle of the +1-order diffracted light on the LCoS assembly is greater than or equal to the first diffraction angle; or a diffraction angle of the 0-order diffracted light on the LCoS assembly is greater than the first diffraction angle, and a diffraction angle of the +1-order diffracted light on the LCoS assembly is greater than or equal to the first diffraction angle. The closest prior art was relied upon in the previous rejection.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc E Manheim whose telephone number is (703)756-1873. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am - 5pm E.T., Monday - Tuesday and Thursday - Friday.
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, Thomas A Hollweg can be reached at (571) 270-1739. 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.
/MARC E MANHEIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874