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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a processing optical unit” in claim 8 and “a beam shaping optical unit” in claim 9, wherein the generic place holder “optical unit” is preceded by functional limitations “a processing” and “a beam shaping” without sufficiently reciting what the “optical unit” structurally entails. Further, “a feed device” in claim 8 and “an axis device” in claim 10, wherein the generic place holder “device” is preceded by functional limitations without sufficiently reciting what the “device” structurally entails.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Structural support for “a processing optical unit” can be found in ¶ 0089 of the specification and is described as an optical imaging system comprising one or more lens or an optically imaging free-form surface. Thus, “a processing optical unit” is interpreted to mean any lens system or assembly for guiding a laser beam from a laser source onto a surface and equivalent thereof for the purpose of this examination.
Structural support for “a beam shaping optical unit” can be found in ¶ 0159 of the specification and is described as an axicon for shaping the incident laser beam. Thus, “a beam shaping optical unit” is interpreted to mean any axicon for shaping the incident laser beam and equivalent thereof for the purpose of this examination.
Structural support for “feed device” can be found in ¶ 0090, 0100, 0118 and 0160 – 0166 of the specification, wherein the “feed device” is described as a table or a workpiece holder, a robot or a spatially resolving encoder that can relatively move the laser beam and the workpiece in different axis rotationally or translationally. Thus, “feed device” is interpreted to mean any table, workpiece holder, robot or encoder that relatively move or rotate move the laser beam and the workpiece in different axis and equivalent thereof for the purpose of this examination.
Structural support for “axis device” can be found in ¶ 0100 - 0104 of the specification, wherein the “axis device” is described as a robotic arm or rotational shaft that guides the relative movement of the laser beam and the workpiece in different axis. Thus, “axis device is interpreted to be any robotic arm or shaft that guides the relative movement of the laser beam and the workpiece along axes and equivalent thereof for the purpose of this examination.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Further, claims 1 – 6, 8 – 11 and 15 – 16 all have limitations connected by “and/or” and the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claims is considered to be any one or more of the limitations from the list connected by “and/or” as discussed in ¶ 0173 of the specification. The examiner notes that in the rejection of the claims herein, if a limitation from a list connected by “and/or” is not mapped to a prior art then it is considered optional.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, this claim starts by reciting the limitation “The device according to claim 3…" wherein claim 3 is a method claim dependent from independent method claim 1 and it is not clear what “device claim” is referred to herein, rendering the claim indefinite.
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) 1 – 9, 11 – 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanov et al. (US 2020/0361037 A1) and hereinafter “Ivanov”
Regarding claim 1, Ivanov discloses a method for separating a workpiece having a transparent material (a method of laser separating a transparent workpiece 160, 460, (0043, 0051 – 0052, 0133 and see annotated FIGS. 9A and 9B) the method comprising:
providing ultrashort laser pulses using an ultrashort pulse laser (providing an ultra-short pulses from laser beam source 110, (0117 and see FIG.1C)),
introducing material modifications into the transparent material of the workpiece along a separation line (introducing crack propagations 172, 472a, 472b for separation along a separation line of the transparent workpiece 160, 460, (0114, 0133 and see FIGS. 1A, 1B, annotated 9A and 9B)), and
separating the material of the workpiece along the separation line (separating the transparent workpiece 164, 460 along by directing the laser beam focal line 113 along a separation line 113, (0133 and see FIGS. 1C, annotated 9A and 9B)), wherein the laser pulses form a laser beam that is incident onto the workpiece at a work angle (the first and second cracks 472a, 472b are formed by directing the laser beam focal line 113, at an angle, from the impingement surfaces 462, 464 to the edge surface 466 , (0133 and see FIGS.9A and 9B)), the material modifications are Type III modifications associated with a formation of cracks in the material of the workpiece (the material modifications forms the first and second cracks (defects) 472a, 472b in the transparent workpiece 460, (0133, see annotated FIG.9A and 9B)*Note here- “Type III modification” is interpreted to mean formation of cracks along a separation line in the transparent workpiece as discussed in the specification ¶ 0088, 0125, 0133), the material modifications penetrate two sides of the workpiece that are located in intersecting planes (the formed cracks 472a, 472b penetrate the upper and lower surfaces 462, 464 and edge surface 466 that are located in intersecting planes, (0133 and please see annotated FIGS.9A and 9B)) separating the material of the workpiece produces a chamfer and/or a bevel (separating the cracks 472a, 472b from the transparent material 460 produces a separated article 460′ having beveled edge 468, as depicted in FIG. 9B, (0133)).
PNG
media_image1.png
647
954
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ivanov does not explicitly say a length of a hypotenuse of the chamfer and/or bevel is between 50µm and 5000µm.
However, Ivanov also teaches that the transparent workpiece may have a depth (e.g., thickness) ranging from 50 µm to 10,000µm, (0053 and please see annotated FIG.9A) and the crack angle (θd) can be chosen to be any angle greater than 10 degrees, (0130 and please see annotated FIG.9B). Thus, choosing the crack angle to be 30 degrees, the lower triangle opposite side to be 200 µm and applying basic trigonometry (sin 30o = 200 µm /hypotenuse, would yield the hypotenuse to be 100 µm, which is in the range between 50µm and 5000µm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the hypotenuse of the chamfer and/or bevel to be between 50µm and 5000µm, as Ivanov teaches a thickness of the transparent workpiece that suggests the hypotenuse to be within the claimed range of 50µm and 5000µm and “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists”, see MPEP 2144.05. In this case, the thickness of the transparent workpiece taught by Ivanov suggests the hypotenuse of beveled edge to be in the claimed range, rendering the claimed hypotenuse range obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Ivanov teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein separating the material of the workpiece comprises a mechanical separation, and/or an etching procedure, and/or an application of heat, and/or a self-separation (separating the material from the transparent workpiece also includes a subsequent step of separating by mechanical force or thermal stress induced force or a chemical etching to propagate the crack along a contour, (0127)).
Regarding claim 3, Ivanov teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein
the laser beam is a non-diffractive laser beam (the laser beams used are “quasi-non-diffracting beam”, example, Gauss-Bessel beams, Airy beams, Weber beams, and Bessel beams, (0056 – 0057)), and/or
the laser beam has a non-radially symmetric transverse intensity distribution (laser beams of oblong angular spectrum or non-radially symmetric transverse intensity are used, (0090 – 0092 and see FIG.3A)), with the transverse intensity distribution appearing elongate in a direction of a first axis in comparison with a second axis perpendicular to the first axis (the transverse intensity is elongate along the focal line axis where maximum intensity of the laser beam is extending, (0049)).
Regarding claim 4, Ivanov teaches the device according to claim 3, wherein
a projection of the non-radially symmetric transverse intensity distribution onto the workpiece appears to have a same size along the first axis and along the second axis as a result of the work angle (the oblong angular spectrum laser beam is refracted at the transparent workpiece surface to form a circular or almost circular spectrum inside the transparent workpiece 160, (0092 and see FIG.3A), thus, the oblong angular beam (FIG.3A) appears to have the same size along the first and second axis (circular) due to the refractive angle), and/or
the projection of the non-radially symmetric transverse intensity distribution onto the workpiece is elongated in a feed direction (the transverse intensity is elongate along the focal line axis where maximum intensity of the laser beam is extending, (0049)), and/or
a ratio of the first axis to the second axis of the non-radially symmetric transverse intensity distribution is greater than a reciprocal of cosine of the work angle, and/or the ratio of the first axis to the second axis is greater than 2.
Regarding claim 5, Ivanov teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the length of the hypotenuse of the chamfer and/or bevel is between 100 µm and 200 µm (the transparent workpiece may have a depth (e.g., thickness) ranging from 50 µm to 10,000µm, (0053 and please see annotated FIG.9A) and the crack angle (θd) can be chosen to be any angle greater than 10 degrees, (0130 and please see annotated FIG.9B). Thus, choosing the crack angle to be 30 degrees, the lower triangle opposite side to be 200 µm and applying basic trigonometry (sin 30o = 200 µm /hypotenuse, would yield the hypotenuse to be 100 µm, which is in the range between 100 µm and 200 µm).
Regarding claim 6, Ivanov teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein:
a pulse energy of the laser pulses is between 10µJ and 5mJ (the pulse energy of the laser pulse can be from 25 μJ to 600 μJ, depending on the specific composition of the transparent workpiec3, (0123)) and/or
a mean laser power is between 1W and 1kW (average laser power can be from 10 W to about 1000 W, (0128)) and/or
the laser pulses are individual laser pulses or part of a laser burst (the laser pulses can be pulsing bursts having sub-pulses, (0119)); a laser burst comprising
2 to 20 laser pulses (a laser burst can have 2 or more sub-laser pulses, (0119)), and the laser pulses of the laser burst having a temporal spacing of 10ns to 40ns (the sub-pulses within the pulse burst may be separated by a duration that is in a range from about 1 ns to about 50 ns, (0120)), and/or
a wavelength of the laser is between 300nm and 1500nm (suitable wavelengths may include from 215 nm – 1064nm, (0084 and 0115)).
Regarding claim 7, Ivanov teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the laser beam is polarized parallel to a plane of incidence (the laser beams can be S-polarized or P-polarized wherein in P-polarization is the laser beam is polarized parallel to a plane of incidence, (0104)).
Regarding claim 8, Ivanov discloses a device for separating a workpiece comprising a transparent material (an optical assembly 100 for separating a transparent workpiece 160, please see FIGS.2A and 2B), the device comprising:
an ultrashort pulse laser configured to provide ultrashort laser pulses (laser beam source 110 configured to provide ultrashort laser pulses (0117, see FIGS.2A and 2B)),
a processing optical unit (lens assembly 130, see FIGS. 2A and 2B) configured to introduce the laser pulses into the material of the workpiece (the lens assembly 130 is configured to introduce laser beam 112 comprising laser pulses into the material of the transparent workpiece 160, (084 – 0086 and see FIGS. 2A and 2B)), and
a feed device (one or more translation stages 190, see FIGS. 2A and 2B) configured to move the laser beam formed by the laser pulses and the workpiece relative to one another with a feed along a separation line (the one or more translation stages 190 configured to translate the laser beam focal line 113 relative to the transparent workpiece 160, the plurality of crack lines 172 may be formed in the transparent workpiece 160,(0114, see FIGS.2A and 2B)), and to orient an optical axis of the processing optical unit at a work angle relative to a surface of the workpiece, wherein the laser pulses are introduced into the workpiece at the work angle (wherein each of the plurality of crack lines (defects) 172 are oriented at a crack line ( defect) angle θd (e.g. greater than 10°) of the transparent workpiece 160, (0114, and see FIGS. 1A - 2B)), material modifications are introduced in the material of the workpiece by the laser pulses, the material modifications are Type III modifications associated with a formation of cracks in the material of the workpiece(the material modifications forms the first and second cracks (defects) 472a, 472b in the transparent workpiece 460, (0133, see annotated FIG.9A and 9B)), the material modifications penetrate two sides of the workpiece that are located in intersecting planes (the formed cracks 472a, 472b penetrate the upper and lower surfaces 462, 464 and edge surface 466 that are located in intersecting planes, (0133 and please see annotated FIGS.9A and 9B)), a separation step separating the material of the workpiece produces a chamfer and/or a bevel(separating the cracks 472a, 472b from the transparent material 460 produces a separated article 460′ having beveled edge 468, as depicted in FIG. 9B, (0133)).
Ivanov does not explicitly say a length of a hypotenuse of the chamfer and/or bevel is between 50µm and 5000µm.
However, Ivanov also teaches that the transparent workpiece may have a depth (e.g., thickness) ranging from 50 µm to 10,000µm, (0053 and please see annotated FIG.9A) and the crack angle (θd) can be chosen to be any angle greater than 10 degrees, (0130 and please see annotated FIG.9B). Thus, choosing the crack angle to be 30 degrees, the lower triangle opposite side to be 200 µm and applying basic trigonometry (sin 30o = 200 µm /hypotenuse, would yield the hypotenuse to be 100 µm, which is in the range between 50µm and 5000µm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the hypotenuse of the chamfer and/or bevel to be between 50µm and 5000µm, as Ivanov teaches a thickness of the transparent workpiece that suggests the hypotenuse to be within the claimed range of 50µm and 5000µm and “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists”, see MPEP 2144.05. In this case, the thickness of the transparent workpiece taught by Ivanov suggests the hypotenuse of beveled edge to be in the claimed range, rendering the claimed hypotenuse range obvious.
Regarding claim 9, Ivanov teaches the device according to claim 8, further comprising a beam shaping optical unit configured to shape the laser beam into a non-diffractive laser beam (axicon 124 configured to transform the laser beam into diffractive beam, (0095)), with a transverse intensity distribution of the non-diffractive laser beam being non-radially symmetric(a transverse intensity distribution of the non-diffractive laser beam being oblong angular spectrum or non-radially symmetric, (0090 – 0092 and see FIG.3A)), with the non-radially symmetric transverse intensity distribution being elongate in a direction of a first axis in comparison with a second axis perpendicular to the first axis(the transverse intensity is elongate along the focal line axis where maximum intensity of the laser beam is extending, (0049)).
Regarding claim 11, Ivanov teaches the device according to claim 8, wherein:
the work angle of the processing optical unit is between 0 and 60° (the crack angle (θd) can be chosen to be any angle greater than 10 degrees, (0130 and please see annotated FIG.9B), and/or
component laser rays of the laser beam are incident on the workpiece at an angle of incidence of no more than 80° with respect to a surface normal of the workpiece.
Regarding claim 12, Ivanov teaches the device according to claim 8, further comprising a polarization optical unit (optical element 120, see FIG.2A), the polarization optical unit comprising a polarizer and a waveplate, and configured to adjust a polarization of the laser beam relative to a plane of incidence of the laser beam (the optical element 102 is a plate comprising, additional optical component, such as a polarizer configured to S-polarize or P-polarize the laser beam 112, (0104 and see FIG.2A)),
Regarding claim 13, Ivanov teaches the device according to claim 12, wherein the polarization optical unit is configured to adjust the polarization parallel to the plane of incidence of the laser beam (the laser beams can be S-polarized or P-polarized, wherein in P-polarization is the laser beam is polarized parallel to a plane of incidence, (0104)).
Regarding claim 15, Ivanov teaches the device according claim 8, further comprising:
a beam guiding device configured to guide the laser beam to the workpiece, the beam guiding device comprising a mirror system and/or an optical fiber (a beam guiding elements 122 communicatively connected to a controller to guide the laser via optical fiber, (0093 and FIG.2A)), and/or
control electronics configured to trigger a laser pulse emission of the ultrashort pulse laser based on relative positions of the laser beam and the workpiece (controller 121 configured to control the laser pulses impinging the transparent workpiece 160, (0093 – 0094, 0107, and 0112)).
Claim(s) 10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanov in view of Lee et al. (KR 100800565 B1, cited in the IDS filed on 08/14/2025)
Regarding claim 10, Ivanov teaches the device according to claim 8, wherein:
the processing optical unit comprises a telescope system configured to introduce the laser beam with a reduced and/or increased size into the workpiece (the lens assembly 130 comprises multiple lenses, prisms and collimating space to control the size of the laser beam, (0084 – 0086, see FIGS.2A and 2B)), and/or
the feed device comprises and a workpiece holder that are configured to move the processing optical unit and the workpiece relative to one another (the translation stage 190 is a workpiece holder coupled to the transparent workpiece 160 configured to translate the laser beam relative to the transparent workpiece 160, (0108, 0114, see FIGS.2A and 2B)).
Ivanov does not explicitly teach that the translation stage 190 (feed device) comprises an axis device that is configured to move along three spatial axes in translational fashion and about at least two spatial axes in rotational fashion.
However, Lee that relates a high-speed fiber laser cutting, (page 7), also teaches an axis device (a robotic optical fiber holder arm 100, see FIGS.5 and 6) that is configured to move along three spatial axes in translational fashion and about at least two spatial axes in rotational fashion (the robotic optical fiber holder arm 100 is configured to move with 5-axis translation and rotational freedom, (pages 8, 17 – 18 and see FIGS. 5 and 6)).
This laser robotic arm has the advantage for providing multiple axis movement freedom for high speed fiber laser processing while protecting the optical fiber from damaged due to excessive rotation and impact (pages 12 – 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ivanov’s translational stage to include an axis device (a robotic optical fiber holder arm 100) that is configured to move with 5-axis translation and rotational freedom in order to provide multiple axis movement freedom for high speed fiber laser processing while protecting the optical fiber from damaged due to excessive rotation and impact as taught in Lee.
Regarding claim 14, Ivanov in view of Lee teach the device according to claim 10, wherein the axis device is adjusted for aligning a long axis of the non-radially symmetric transverse intensity distribution along a feed direction (the robotic optical fiber holder arm 100 is adjustable to align along multiple axes of laser application the laser processing head, Lee (page 19 and see FIG.6)).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanov in view of Lee in further view of Almer et al. (US 20220258285 A1, foreign priority Nov. 5, 2019) and hereinafter “Almer”.
Regarding claim 16, Ivanov in view of Lee teaches the device according to claim 10.
Ivanov in view of Lee do not teach the workpiece holder (the translation stage 190) has a surface that does not reflect and/or scatter the laser beam.
However, Almer that relates to a laser cutting method and device for cutting planar glass material (0002 – 0003), also teaches that the carrier plate 4 for holding the glass plate 2 to be cut must have of a diffusing layer 5 that is composed polytetrafluoroethylene material that diffuses laser beam emerging from the glass plate 2 and to prevent interference with the laser cutting process, (0045 – 0046, 0054 and see FIG.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the workpiece holder of claim 10 taught by Ivanov in view of Lee to be a surface of non-reflective and/or non-scattering material of a laser beam in order to prevent interference with the laser cutting process as taught in Almer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DILNESSA B BELAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3136. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approx. 8:00 am - 5:30 pm EST.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/DILNESSA B BELAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761