DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/25 with regard to claim 25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that Makrides-Saravanos does not teach a single input optical fiber that the splits into a plurality of output optical fibers (Makrides-Saravanos is 1 for 1 input to output fibers): It is unclear where this 1 for 1 input to output fiber is from. Makrides-Saravanos teaches a single fiber (212, Fig. 4) entering the splitter and multiple output fibers (116). Regarding the argument that the output fibers in Makrides-Saravanos do not extend within the housing without any protective tubing but then extend out with protective tubing: Makrides-Saravanos teaches output fibers without protective tubing (116) within the housing (132, 204) and the fibers extend out of the housing with protective tubing (110) (at 116, the fiber is bare, at 112 and 110 the fibers have both outer coatings (112) and an outer jacket (109). The fiber outer coating and jacket are the “protective tubing” since these layers are cylindrical layers surrounding the fiber to protect the bare glass interior of the fiber.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 17, 19 and 24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Makrides-Saravanos (US 9,971,093 B2). Makrides-Saravanos teaches:
25. An optical splitter module (10, 130, Figs. 1-5) for splitting an input signal from a single input optical fiber (212), the optical splitter module comprising:
the input optical fiber (212);
a plurality of output optical fibers (110); and
a splitter device (part of 130) configured to split the single input signal from the input optical fiber (212) into a plurality of output signals that are each directed into one of the plurality of output optical fibers (110) (C6 L59-67),
wherein the optical splitter module (10) defines an internal volume (inside 131), wherein the single input optical fiber (212), the plurality of output optical fibers (110), and the splitter device (part of 130) are received in the internal volume (inside 131), wherein the optical splitter module defines a plurality of openings (at 132 and at the exit opening of 204),
wherein the optical splitter module (10, 130) includes an open section inside the internal volume (within 130 and 200), wherein the plurality of output optical fibers (110) extend within the open section without any protective tubing (at 116), wherein the plurality of output fibers (110) extend out of the plurality of openings with protective tubing (109, 112) (C5 L12-30).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feustel et al (US 7,218,828 B2) in view of Feustel et al (US 7,187,838 B2) and Ogawa et al (US 2002/0141724 A1).
Feustel ‘828 teaches:
1. An optical splitter assembly (10, Figs. 1-3) for splitting an input signal from an input optical fiber (C3 L40-46), the optical splitter assembly (10) comprising:
an optical splitter module (32) having:
an input optical fiber (34);
a plurality of output optical fibers (36); and
a splitter device (part of 32) configured to split the input signal from the input optical fiber (34) into a plurality of output signals that are each directed into one of the plurality of output optical fibers (36) (C3 L40-46); and
wherein the optical splitter module (32) defines an internal volume (inside 32), wherein the input optical fiber (34), the plurality of output optical fibers (36), and the splitter device (part of 32) are provided in the internal volume (inside 32), wherein one or more groupings of the plurality of output optical fibers (one group to 44a, one to 44b, one to 44c, one to 44d) extend out of the optical splitter module (32) in corresponding one or more fiber ribbons (see Fig. 3) that each comprise one of the one or more groupings of the plurality of output optical fibers (one group to 44a, one to 44b, one to 44c, one to 44d) (C3 L49-67).
3.The optical splitter assembly of Claim 1, wherein the optical splitter module (32) is configured to receive a portion of the one or more fiber ribbons (all the ribbons that go to 44a-d extend from 32), wherein two or more output optical fibers extend into each of the one or more fiber ribbons (pick one fiber that goes to 44a and pick one fiber that goes to 44b, see Fig. 3).
24. A method of manufacturing an optical splitter assembly (10, Figs. 1-3) for splitting an input signal from an input optical fiber (C3 L40-46), the method comprising:
providing an optical splitter module (10);
providing an input optical fiber (34);
providing a plurality of output optical fibers (36);
providing a splitter device (32) configured to split the input signal from the input optical fiber into a plurality of output signals that are each directed into one of the plurality of output optical fibers (C3 L40-46);
installing the splitter device (32) in the optical splitter module (10);
routing the output optical fibers to an external device (C3 L1-16);
routing the input optical fiber (34) to the optical splitter module (10);
routing the input optical fiber and the plurality of output optical fibers within the optical splitter module (10) to the splitter device (32); and
connecting the input optical fiber (35) and the plurality of output optical fibers (36) to the splitter device (32),
wherein the optical splitter module (32) defines an internal volume (inside 32), wherein one or more groupings of the plurality of output optical fibers extend out of the optical splitter module (32) in corresponding one or more fiber ribbons that each comprise one of the one or more groupings of the plurality of output optical fibers (one group to 44a, one to 44b, one to 44c, one to 44d).
Feustel ‘828 does not teach one or more external fanout devices that are provided outside of the optical splitter module wherein each grouping of the one or more groupings extends to a separate external fanout device of the one or more external fanout devices, wherein individual output optical fibers extend out of each of the one or more external fanout devices with the individual output optical fibers being separate from each other and routing the output optical fibers from the external fanout device to the optical splitter module in a fiber ribbon or removing protective tubing from at least one of the input optical fiber or the plurality of output optical fibers.
Feustel ‘838 teaches an optical splitter assembly (10, Figs. 1-3), comprising one or more external fanout devices (54) that are provided outside of an optical splitter module (18) wherein each grouping of one or more groupings (each 42 can output a different grouping, see Fig. 3) extends to a separate external fanout device (54, each 28 holds different fanout devices for different groupings (C5 L44 – C6 L8) of the one or more external fanout devices (54), wherein individual output optical fibers (55) extend out of each of the one or more external fanout devices (54) with the individual output optical fibers (55) being separate from each other (see Fig. 3, C6 L1-20) wherein protective tubing is removed (55, Fig. 3 – ribbon coating is no longer present at 55 and these are output fibers).
Feustel ‘828 and Feustel ‘838 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, optical splitter assemblies.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the assembly of Feustel ‘828 to use the splitter module in the assembly taught by Feustel ‘838.
The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce overall size of the assembly and to reduce complexities by using conventional assemblies (Feustel ‘828, C4 L22-37).
Feustel ‘828 and Feustel ‘838 do not teach wherein each of the one or more external fanout devices includes an open section inside an internal volume of the external fanout device, wherein output optical fibers from the fiber ribbon extend into the open section of each external fanout device without any protective tubing, wherein individual output optical fibers extend out of the each fanout device with protective tubing provided around each of the individual output optical fibers.
Ogawa teaches an external fanout device (10, Fig. 1) includes an open section inside an internal volume (between 100, 110) of the external fanout device (10), wherein output optical fibers (133) from a fiber ribbon (120) extend into the open section of each external fanout device (10) without any protective tubing (at 133, P0047), wherein individual output optical fibers (133) extend out of the fanout device (10) with protective tubing (131) provided around each of the individual output optical fibers (133) (P0047).
Feustel ‘828, Feustel ‘838 and Ogawa are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, optical fiber assemblies.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the external fanout devices of Feustel ‘828 and Feustel ‘838 to include the fanout device of Ogawa.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow more space within the device and to protect the fibers outside the device.
Claims 4-6, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feustel ‘828, Feustel ‘838 and Ogawa applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Miller et al (US 2014/0314385 A1).
Feustel ‘828, Feustel ‘838 and Ogawa teach the optical splitter assembly previously discussed including (from claim 17) wherein optical splitter module (10) is configured to permit one or more groupings of the plurality of output optical fibers (36) to extend out of the optical splitter module (32) in corresponding one or more fiber ribbons (part of 36) that each comprise one of the one or more groupings of the plurality of output optical fibers (one group to 44a, one to 44b, one to 44c, one to 44d), wherein the plurality of output optical fibers extend from the plurality of fiber ribbons (part of 36) into the internal volume of the optical splitter module (32) separately (see Fig. 3, each fiber coming out of 32 can be considered fibers extending within the volume of the splitter “separately”).
Feustel ‘828, Feustel ‘838 and Ogawa also teaches (from claim 19) wherein the at least one input optical fiber (34), a plurality of output optical fibers (36), and the splitter device (32) are provided in the volume (Fig. 3), wherein optical splitter module (32) is configured to permit one or more groupings of the plurality of output optical fibers (part of 36) to extend out of the optical splitter module in corresponding one or more fiber ribbons that each comprise one of the one or more groupings of the plurality of output optical fibers (one group to 44a, one to 44b, one to 44c, one to 44d), wherein the plurality of output optical fibers extend from the plurality of fiber ribbons into the internal volume of the optical splitter module separately (see Fig. 3, each fiber coming out of 32 can be considered fibers extending within the volume of the splitter “separately”).
Feustel ‘828, Feustel ‘838 and Ogawa do not teach expressly:
4. The optical splitter assembly of Claim 3, wherein sixty-four output optical fibers extend from the internal volume into eight fiber ribbons, wherein eight output optical fibers extend into each of the eight fiber ribbons, wherein each of the eight fiber ribbons extends to a respective external fanout device, wherein eight individual output optical fibers extend out of each of the one or more external fanout devices.
5. The optical splitter assembly of Claim 1, wherein a split density is a number of output optical fibers in the optical splitter module divided by a number of input optical fibers in the optical splitter module as well as a volume of the optical splitter module, wherein the split density of the optical splitter module is greater than five or more splits per cubic inch.
10. The optical splitter assembly of Claim 1, wherein the splitter device is configured to split the input signal from one input optical fiber into output signals that are directed to sixty-four output optical fibers.
17. Taught by Feustel except for, wherein a split density is a number of output optical fibers in the optical splitter module divided by a number of input optical fibers in the optical splitter module as well as a volume of the optical splitter module, wherein the split density of the optical splitter module is 36 or more splits per cubic inch.
Miller teaches an optical splitter assembly (Fig. 3) wherein 32 output optical fibers extend from the internal volume into eight fiber ribbons (P0174), wherein eight output optical fibers extend into each of the eight fiber ribbons (12a-d), wherein each of the eight fiber ribbons (12a-d). Miller also teaches modular splitters are known to house 1x32 (as shown in Fig. 3) or 1x64 splitters (P0014).
Miller also teaches wherein the split density of the optical splitter module is greater than five or more splits per cubic inch (P0018 – 3x5x0.5inches per 32 splits).
Feustel ‘828, Feustel ‘838, Ogawa and Miller are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, optical splitter assemblies.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the splitter of Feustel ‘828, Feustel ‘838 and Ogawa to include a 64 output in 8 fiber ribbon outputs and a split density of more than five splits per inch as taught by Miller that can route to the external fanout device already taught by Feustel ‘828 and Feustel ‘838.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for very high density performance in optical equipment (Miller, P0014).
Feustel ‘828, Feustel ‘838, Ogawa and Miller disclose the claimed invention except for a 36 or more split density. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to try a 36 or more split density, since it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). “The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Miller teaches strategies to allow for more efficient packing of containers and components (abstract), therefore it would not be inventive to discover a workable split density of 36 or more splits per inch since optical fibers are dimensioned to allow for this density.
Claims 7-9 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feustel ‘828, Feustel ‘838, Ogawa and Miller as applied to claims 4-6, 10 and 17 above, and further in view of applicant’s admitted prior art (APA).
Regarding claims 7-9 and 19:
From claim 19, Feustel ‘828 further teach wherein the at least one input optical fiber (34), a plurality of output optical fibers (36), and the splitter device (32) are provided in the volume (inside 32), wherein optical splitter module is configured to permit one or more groupings of the plurality of output optical fibers to extend out of the optical splitter module in corresponding one or more fiber ribbons that each comprise one of the one or more groupings of the plurality of output optical fibers (one group to 44a, one to 44b, one to 44c, one to 44d), wherein the plurality of output optical fibers extend from the plurality of fiber ribbons into the internal volume of the optical splitter module separately (see Fig. 3, each fiber coming out of 32 can be considered fibers extending within the volume of the splitter “separately”).
Feustel ‘828, Feustel ‘838, Ogawa and Miller discloses the claimed invention except for the output fibers being standard fibers types ITU-T G.657.B3 fibers (which are bend insensitive fibers with a minimum bending radius of approximately 5 millimeters or less with an induced loss at a wavelength of 1550 nanometers that is less than 0.1 decibels per turn). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to try using an industry standard fiber such as an ITU-T G.657.B3 fiber for the output fibers, which applicant states has all the claimed properties (P0042), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Industry standard fibers are by definition a known material and one of ordinary skill the art would expect an ITU-T G.657.B3 fiber to be suitable for the splitter of Feustel ‘828, Feustel ‘838 and Miller since such fiber have a small diameter and Feustel ‘828, Feustel ‘838 and Miller teach the need for high density.
Regarding claims 20-23:
Miller teaches wherein the split density of the optical splitter module is greater than five or more splits per cubic inch (P0018 – 3x5x0.5inches per 32 splits).
Feustel ‘828, Feustel ‘838, Ogawa and Miller are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, optical splitter assemblies.
Feustel ‘828, Feustel ‘838, Ogawa and Miller disclose the claimed invention except for a 36 or more split density (this range encompasses claims 20-23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to try a 36 or more split density, since it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). “The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Miller teaches strategies to allow for more efficient packing of containers and components (abstract), therefore it would not be inventive to discover a workable split density of 36 more splits per inch since optical fibers are dimensioned to allow for this density.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feustel ‘828, Feustel ‘838 and Ogawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Makrides-Saravanos (US 9,971,093 B2).
Feustel ‘828, Feustel ‘838 and Ogawa teach the optical splitter assembly previously discussed.
Feustel ‘828, Feustel ‘838 and Ogawa do not teach expressly wherein the optical splitter module defines a void, wherein the optical splitter module is configured to receive the plurality of output optical fibers in the void, wherein the optical splitter module is configured to receive an epoxy material to at least partially restrict movement of the plurality of output optical fibers in the void, wherein each of the one or more external fanout devices includes an open section inside an internal volume of the external fanout device, wherein output optical fibers from the fiber ribbon extend into the open section without any protective tubing, or wherein individual output optical fibers extend out of each of the one or more external fanout devices, wherein protective tubing is provided around each of the individual output optical fibers.
Makrides-Saravanos teaches an optical splitter assembly (Fig. 5) for splitting an input signal from an input optical fiber (212), the optical splitter assembly comprising: an optical splitter module (130) having: an input optical fiber (212); a plurality of output optical fibers (110); and a splitter device (part of 130) configured to split the input signal from the input optical fiber (212) into a plurality of output signals that are each directed into one of the plurality of output optical fibers (110); and one or more external fanout devices (140) that are provided outside of the optical splitter module (10), wherein the optical splitter module (130) defines an internal volume (inside of 130), wherein the input optical fiber (212), the plurality of output optical fibers (100), and the splitter device (part of 130) are provided in the internal volume (see Fig. 4), wherein one or more groupings of the plurality of output optical fibers (110) extend out of the optical splitter module (130), wherein each grouping of the one or more groupings (one group is shown, see the arrow of 110 in Fig. 5) extends to an external fanout device (140) of the one or more external fanout devices (140), wherein individual output optical fibers (at 108/109) extend out of each of the one or more external fanout devices (140) with the individual output optical fibers being separate from each other (at 108/109) (C7 L45 — C8 L24).
11. The optical splitter assembly of Claim 1, wherein the optical splitter module (130) defines a void (inside of 130), wherein the optical splitter module (130) is configured to receive the plurality of output optical fibers (110) in the void, wherein the optical splitter module is configured to receive an epoxy material to at least partially restrict movement of the plurality of output optical fibers (110) in the void (C6 L3-11).
Feustel ‘828, Feustel ‘838, Ogawa and Makrides-Saravanos are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, optical splitter assemblies.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the assembly of Feustel ‘828, Feustel ‘838 and Ogawa to include the void, epoxy and protective layers of Makrides-Saravanos.
The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce cost of damage by providing a splitter module that holds the fibers firmly within the assembly so the fibers are not pull out.
Claims 13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feustel ‘828, Feustel ‘838, Ogawa and Makrides-Saravanos as applied to claims 11, 12 and 14 above, and further in view of Yow, Jr et al (US 7,461,981 B2).
Feustel ‘828, Feustel ‘838, Ogawa and Makrides-Saravanos teach the optical splitter assembly previously discussed.
Feustel ‘828, Feustel ‘838, Ogawa and Makrides-Saravanos do not teach expressly:
13. The optical splitter assembly of Claim 12, wherein the open section is configured to permit movement of the output optical fibers to accommodate temperature fluctuations.
15. The optical splitter assembly of Claim 12, wherein each of the one or more external fanout devices are configured to provide strain relief for at least one of a fiber ribbon or an individual output optical fiber.
Note, these two claims only adds function to the claimed structure and while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971);< In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original).
16. The optical splitter assembly of Claim 1, wherein each of the one or more external fanout devices includes a hole, wherein the one or more external fanout devices are configured to receive epoxy in an internal volume of the one or more external fanout devices through the hole to at least partially restrict movement of the output optical fibers in the one or more external fanout devices.
Yow teaches an optical fan-out device (30, Figs. 2-6) comprising an open section is configured to permit movement of the output optical fibers (at 50) to accommodate temperature fluctuations (C8 L8-17) and is configured to provide strain relief for at least an individual output optical fiber (C13 L37-43) and a hole (46), wherein the fanout device (30) is configured to receive epoxy in an internal volume of the one or more external fanout devices through the hole (46) to at least partially restrict movement of the output optical fibers in the one or more external fanout devices (C13 L37-43).
Feustel ‘828, Feustel ‘838, Ogawa, Makrides-Saravanos and Yow are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, optical fan-outs and/or splitters.
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fan-out of Feustel ‘828, Feustel ‘838, Ogawa and Makrides-Saravanos to include the hole and epoxy taught and the functions that go allow with those as taught by Yow.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the fibers to remain secure even during extreme temperature cycling (Yow, C1 L64 – C2 L21).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A LEPISTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1946. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-6PM 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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN A LEPISTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874