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 AMENDMENT
Claims 1-11 and 19-30 are pending in the application. Claims 12-18 have been cancelled. Claims 19-30 have been added.
Amendments to the claims 1, 3, and 7, filed on 28 November 2025, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Answers to Applicants' Arguments
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 28 November 2025, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §112 rejections made of record, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims.
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 28 November 2025, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §102 rejections made of record over Jaramillo, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims.
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 28 November 2025, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 rejections made of record over Esemann, have been fully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicants argue that Esemann merely discloses a process where three glass components, a structured interposer, a cover, and a bottom, are bonded to each other by an adhesive, and that openings are defined in the interposer. Wherein Esemann alone or in combination with other prior art fails to disclose or suggest the height deviations now claimed. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Esemann discloses that the structured interposer, also referred to therein as a disc-shaped glass sheet/element (ref. #3), and that the glass sheet has a first surface and an opposing second surface, and channels (ref. #41) extending through the sheet from the first surface to the second surface (figures 6 to 8 and [0079]-[0083] of Esemann). (In the instant case, the glass sheet with the channels taught by Esemann is considered to be an intermediate product which is considered equivalent to the claimed platelike glass element, and not the end structure of the bonded elements of the interposer, cover, and bottom as argued by applicants.) Furthermore, while Esemann the claimed platelike glass element, but does not explicitly recite --the first surface, at least partially around the hole, has a height deviation with respect to the first surface that is, a shortening of a wall of the hole, and wherein the height deviation has a height selected from a group consisting of: greater than 0.005 µm, greater than 0.05 µm, greater than 0 and less than 0.1 µm, greater than 0 and less than 0.3 µm, and greater than 0 and less than 0.5 µm--. However, the platelike glass element of Esemann is made by the same process as applicants' (i.e., a platelike glass element, comprising: a first surface, a second surface opposite the first, and a hole that perforates the first surface, wherein the hole extends in a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction, the longitudinal direction is transverse to the first surface, the first surface, at least partially around the hole, has a height deviation with respect to the first surface that is, a shortening of a wall of the hole, and wherein the height deviation has a height selected from a group consisting of: greater than 0.005 µm, greater than 0.05 µm, greater than 0 and less than 0.1 µm, greater than 0 and less than 0.3 µm, and greater than 0 and less than 0.5 µm; see (figures 6 to 8, [0023], [0032], [0075]-[0089], and [0107]) of Esemann and ([0018] and [0029]-[0039]) of the filed specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the platelike glass element of Esemann inherently possesses a first surface, at least partially around the hole, having a height deviation with respect to the first surface that is, a shortening of a wall of the hole, and wherein the height deviation has a height selected from a group consisting of: greater than 0.005 µm, greater than 0.05 µm, greater than 0 and less than 0.1 µm, greater than 0 and less than 0.3 µm, and greater than 0 and less than 0.5 µm. See MPEP §2112.
Therefore, in light of applicants' arguments, the examiner contends that the 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 rejections made over Esemann are still valid.
New and Repeated Rejections
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With Regards to Claim 10: Instant claim 10 recites the limitation --the average roughness-- in line 2, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "an[[the]] average roughness".
With Regards to Claim 24: Instant claim 24 recites the limitation --less than 1 mm..-- in line 7, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "less than 1 mm.[[.]]".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 10 is 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.
With Regards to Claim 10: Claim 10 recites the limitation "the average roughness of the first surface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 19-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Esemann et al. (US 2019/0329252 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 19, and 27: Esemann teaches a platelike glass sheet (ref. #3) comprising a first surface and opposing second surface, and channels (ref. #41) extending through the sheet from the first surface to the second surface (figures 6 to 8, [0079]-[0083] of Esemann).
Esemann teaches the claimed platelike glass element, but does not explicitly recite --the first surface, at least partially around the hole, has a height deviation with respect to the first surface that is, a shortening of a wall of the hole, and wherein the height deviation has a height selected from a group consisting of: greater than 0.005 µm, greater than 0.05 µm, greater than 0 and less than 0.1 µm, greater than 0 and less than 0.3 µm, and greater than 0 and less than 0.5 µm-- {instant claim 1}, --the first surface, at least partially around the hole, has a sink defined by a shortening of a wall of the hole with respect to the first surface-- {instant claim 19}, or --the first surface, at least partially around the hole, has an indentation-- {instant claim 19}. However, the platelike glass element of Esemann is made by the same process as applicants' (i.e., a platelike glass element, comprising: a first surface, a second surface opposite the first, and a hole that perforates the first surface, wherein the hole extends in a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction, the longitudinal direction is transverse to the first surface, the first surface, at least partially around the hole, has a height deviation with respect to the first surface that is, a shortening of a wall of the hole, and wherein the height deviation has a height selected from a group consisting of: greater than 0.005 µm, greater than 0.05 µm, greater than 0 and less than 0.1 µm, greater than 0 and less than 0.3 µm, and greater than 0 and less than 0.5 µm {instant claim 1}, a platelike glass element, comprising: a first surface, a second surface opposite the first, and a hole that perforates the first surface, wherein the hole extends in a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction, the longitudinal direction is transverse to the first surface, the first surface, at least partially around the hole, has a sink defined by a shortening of a wall of the hole with respect to the first surface {instant claim 19}, a platelike glass element, comprising: a first surface, a second surface opposite the first, and a hole that perforates the first surface, wherein the hole extends in a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction, the longitudinal direction is transverse to the first surface, the first surface, at least partially around the hole, has an indentation {instant claim 27}; see (figures 6 to 8, [0023], [0032], [0075]-[0089], and [0107]) of Esemann and ([0018] and [0029]-[0039]) of the filed specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the platelike glass element of Esemann inherently possesses a first surface, at least partially around the hole, having a height deviation with respect to the first surface that is, a shortening of a wall of the hole, and wherein the height deviation has a height selected from a group consisting of: greater than 0.005 µm, greater than 0.05 µm, greater than 0 and less than 0.1 µm, greater than 0 and less than 0.3 µm, and greater than 0 and less than 0.5 µm {instant claim 1}, a first surface, at least partially around the hole, having a sink defined by a shortening of a wall of the hole with respect to the first surface {instant claim 19}, and a first surface, at least partially around the hole, having an indentation {instant claim 27}. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claims 2 and 20: Esemann teaches that the hole perforates the second surface (figures 6 to 8 and [0079]-[0084] of Esemann).
Regarding Claim 3: Esemann teaches the claimed platelike glass element, but does not explicitly recite --the height deviation has a further feature selected from a group consisting of: the height deviation completely surrounds the hole, the height deviation has a face that is at an obtuse angle to the first surface, the height deviation has lateral dimensions that are greater than 5 µm, the height deviation has lateral dimensions that are greater than 8 µm, the height deviation has lateral dimensions that are greater than 10 µm, the height deviation has lateral dimensions that are greater than 0 and less than 5 mm, the height deviation has lateral dimensions that are greater than 0 and less than 3 mm, and the height deviation has lateral dimensions that are greater than 0 and less than 1 mm--. However, the platelike glass element of Esemann is made by the same process as applicants' (i.e., a platelike glass element, comprising: a first surface, a second surface opposite the first, and a hole that perforates the first surface, wherein the hole extends in a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction, the longitudinal direction is transverse to the first surface, the first surface, at least partially around the hole, has a height deviation with respect to the first surface that is, a shortening of a wall of the hole, and wherein the height deviation has a height selected from a group consisting of: greater than 0.005 µm, greater than 0.05 µm, greater than 0 and less than 0.1 µm, greater than 0 and less than 0.3 µm, and greater than 0 and less than 0.5 µm; see (figures 6 to 8, [0023], [0032], [0075]-[0089], and [0107]) of Esemann and ([0018] and [0029]-[0039]) of the filed specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the platelike glass element of Esemann inherently possesses the height deviation having a further feature selected from a group consisting of: the height deviation completely surrounds the hole, the height deviation has a face that is at an obtuse angle to the first surface, the height deviation has lateral dimensions that are greater than 5 µm, the height deviation has lateral dimensions that are greater than 8 µm, the height deviation has lateral dimensions that are greater than 10 µm, the height deviation has lateral dimensions that are greater than 0 and less than 5 mm, the height deviation has lateral dimensions that are greater than 0 and less than 3 mm, and the height deviation has lateral dimensions that are greater than 0 and less than 1 mm. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 5: Esemann teaches that the hole has a wall with a multiplicity of domelike indentations (figures 10 to 11 and [0091] of Esemann).
Regarding Claim 6: Esemann teaches that the hole is a channel that extends through the glass element from the first surface to the second surface and perforates both the first and second surfaces (figures 6 to 8 and [0079]-[0084] of Esemann).
Regarding Claim 7: Esemann teaches the platelike glass element further comprising a plurality of the channels that directly border one another to define an edge, the edge being an outside edge or an inside edge (figures 6 to 9 and [0079]-[0090] of Esemann).
Regarding Claims 8, 22, 23, 29, and 30: Esemann teaches the claimed platelike glass element, but does not explicitly recite --the height deviation has a symmetrical shape or an asymmetrical shape-- {instant claim 8}, --the sink has a symmetrical shape-- {instant claim 22}, --the sink has an asymmetrical shape-- {instant claim 23}, --the indentation has a symmetrical shape-- {instant claim 29}, or --the indentation has an asymmetrical shape-- {instant claim 30}. However, the platelike glass element of Esemann is made by the same process as applicants' (i.e., a platelike glass element, comprising: a first surface, a second surface opposite the first, and a hole that perforates the first surface, wherein the hole extends in a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction, the longitudinal direction is transverse to the first surface, the first surface, at least partially around the hole, has a height deviation with respect to the first surface that is, a shortening of a wall of the hole, and wherein the height deviation has a height selected from a group consisting of: greater than 0.005 µm, greater than 0.05 µm, greater than 0 and less than 0.1 µm, greater than 0 and less than 0.3 µm, and greater than 0 and less than 0.5 µm {instant claim 1}, a sink defined by a shortening of a wall of the hole with respect to the first surface {instant claim 19}, an indentation {instant claim 27}; see (figures 6 to 8, [0023], [0032], [0075]-[0089], and [0107]) of Esemann and ([0018] and [0029]-[0039]) of the filed specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the platelike glass element of Esemann inherently possesses the height deviation having a symmetrical shape or an asymmetrical shape {instant claim 8}, the sink having a symmetrical shape {instant claim 22}, the sink having an asymmetrical shape-- {instant claim 23}, the indentation having a symmetrical shape {instant claim 29}, or the indentation having an asymmetrical shape-- {instant claim 30}. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 9: Esemann teaches that the platelike glass element further comprises an inside edge with a multiplicity of domelike indentations (figures 6 to 9 and [0079]-[0090] of Esemann), but does not explicitly recite --the first and second surfaces have a dome-free configuration--. However, the platelike glass element of Esemann is made by the same process as applicants' (i.e., a platelike glass element, comprising: a first surface, a second surface opposite the first, and a hole that perforates the first surface, wherein the hole extends in a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction, the longitudinal direction is transverse to the first surface, the first surface, at least partially around the hole, has a feature selected from a group consisting of: a height deviation with respect to the first surface that is greater than 0.005 µm, a height deviation with respect to the first surface that is greater than 0.05 µm, a height deviation with respect to the first surface that is less than 0.1 µm, a height deviation with respect to the first surface that is less than 0.3 µm, a height deviation with respect to the first surface that is less than 0.5 µm, and combinations thereof, and wherein the first surface has an average roughness value that is less than 15 nm; and an edge between the first surface and the hole that is free of elevations; see (figures 6 to 8, [0023], [0032], [0075]-[0089], and [0107]) of Esemann and ([0018] and [0029]-[0039]) of the filed specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the platelike glass element of Esemann inherently possesses the first and second surfaces having a dome-free configuration. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 10: Esemann teaches the claimed platelike glass element, but does not explicitly recite --an inside edge with a second average roughness that is higher than the average roughness of the first surface--. However, the platelike glass element of Esemann is made by the same process as applicants' (i.e., a platelike glass element, comprising: a first surface, a second surface opposite the first, and a hole that perforates the first surface, wherein the hole extends in a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction, the longitudinal direction is transverse to the first surface, the first surface, at least partially around the hole, has a feature selected from a group consisting of: a height deviation with respect to the first surface that is greater than 0.005 µm, a height deviation with respect to the first surface that is greater than 0.05 µm, a height deviation with respect to the first surface that is less than 0.1 µm, a height deviation with respect to the first surface that is less than 0.3 µm, a height deviation with respect to the first surface that is less than 0.5 µm, and combinations thereof, and wherein the first surface has an average roughness value that is less than 15 nm; and an edge between the first surface and the hole that is free of elevations; see (figures 6 to 8, [0023], [0032], [0075]-[0089], and [0107]) of Esemann and ([0018] and [0029]-[0039]) of the filed specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the platelike glass element of Esemann inherently possesses an inside edge with a second average roughness that is higher than the average roughness of the first surface. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 11: Esemann teaches that the platelike glass element is configured for a use selected from a group consisting of a microfluidic cell ([0002] and [0055] of Esemann).
Regarding Claim 21: Esemann teaches the claimed platelike glass element, but does not explicitly recite --the sink is a domelike indentation--. However, the platelike glass element of Esemann is made by the same process as applicants' (i.e., a platelike glass element, comprising: a first surface, a second surface opposite the first, and a hole that perforates the first surface, wherein the hole extends in a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction, the longitudinal direction is transverse to the first surface, the first surface, at least partially around the hole, has a sink defined by a shortening of a wall of the hole with respect to the first surface {instant claim 19}; see (figures 6 to 8, [0023], [0032], [0075]-[0089], and [0107]) of Esemann and ([0018] and [0029]-[0039]) of the filed specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the platelike glass element of Esemann inherently possesses the sink that is a domelike indentation. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 24: Esemann teaches the claimed platelike glass element, but does not explicitly recite --the sink has a height selected from a group consisting of: greater than 0.005 µm, greater than 0.05 µm, greater than 0 and less than 0.1 µm, greater than 0 and less than 0.3 µm, and greater than 0 and less than 0.5 µm; and/or the sink has a lateral dimension selected from a group consisting of: greater than 5 µm, greater than 8 µm, greater than 10 µm, greater than 0 and less than 5 mm, greater than 0 and less than 3 mm, and greater than 0 and less than 1 mm--. However, the platelike glass element of Esemann is made by the same process as applicants' (i.e., a platelike glass element, comprising: a first surface, a second surface opposite the first, and a hole that perforates the first surface, wherein the hole extends in a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction, the longitudinal direction is transverse to the first surface, the first surface, at least partially around the hole, has a sink defined by a shortening of a wall of the hole with respect to the first surface {instant claim 19}; see (figures 6 to 8, [0023], [0032], [0075]-[0089], and [0107]) of Esemann and ([0018] and [0029]-[0039]) of the filed specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the platelike glass element of Esemann inherently possesses the sink having a height selected from a group consisting of: greater than 0.005 µm, greater than 0.05 µm, greater than 0 and less than 0.1 µm, greater than 0 and less than 0.3 µm, and greater than 0 and less than 0.5 µm; and/or the sink having a lateral dimension selected from a group consisting of: greater than 5 µm, greater than 8 µm, greater than 10 µm, greater than 0 and less than 5 mm, greater than 0 and less than 3 mm, and greater than 0 and less than 1 mm. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 25: Esemann teaches the claimed platelike glass element, but does not explicitly recite --the first surface has an average roughness value that is less than 15 nm--. However, the platelike glass element of Esemann is made by the same process as applicants' (i.e., a platelike glass element, comprising: a first surface, a second surface opposite the first, and a hole that perforates the first surface, wherein the hole extends in a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction, the longitudinal direction is transverse to the first surface, the first surface, at least partially around the hole, has a sink defined by a shortening of a wall of the hole with respect to the first surface {instant claim 19}; see (figures 6 to 8, [0023], [0032], [0075]-[0089], and [0107]) of Esemann and ([0018] and [0029]-[0039]) of the filed specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the platelike glass element of Esemann inherently possesses the first surface with an average roughness value that is less than 15 nm. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 26: Esemann teaches the claimed platelike glass element, but does not explicitly recite --the sink has a face that is at an obtuse angle to the first surface--. However, the platelike glass element of Esemann is made by the same process as applicants' (i.e., a platelike glass element, comprising: a first surface, a second surface opposite the first, and a hole that perforates the first surface, wherein the hole extends in a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction, the longitudinal direction is transverse to the first surface, the first surface, at least partially around the hole, has a sink defined by a shortening of a wall of the hole with respect to the first surface {instant claim 19}; see (figures 6 to 8, [0023], [0032], [0075]-[0089], and [0107]) of Esemann and ([0018] and [0029]-[0039]) of the filed specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the platelike glass element of Esemann inherently possesses the sink having a face that is at an obtuse angle to the first surface. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 28: Esemann teaches the claimed platelike glass element, but does not explicitly recite --the indentation has a domelike shape--. However, the platelike glass element of Esemann is made by the same process as applicants' (i.e., a platelike glass element, comprising: a first surface, a second surface opposite the first, and a hole that perforates the first surface, wherein the hole extends in a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction, the longitudinal direction is transverse to the first surface, the first surface, at least partially around the hole, has an indentation {instant claim 27}; see (figures 6 to 8, [0023], [0032], [0075]-[0089], and [0107]) of Esemann and ([0018] and [0029]-[0039]) of the filed specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the platelike glass element of Esemann inherently possesses the indentation having domelike shape. See MPEP §2112.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 19, 20, 22, 24, 27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada et al. (WO 2020/149040 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 19, and 27: Yamada teaches a microstructured glass substrate having openings on a first main surface, and an annular unique portion in the first main surface, wherein the annular unique portion is a ring-shaped recess near the opening of the hold having a height (D) of -0.4 µm (figure 2, Table 1, [00080], [0099], [0101], and [0104] of Yamada); which anticipates the claimed ranges of --greater than 0.005 µm, greater than 0.05 µm, and greater than 0 and less than 0.5 µm-- {instant claim 1}. See MPEP §2131.03(I). (In the instant case, said unique portion of Yamada is considered equivalent to the claimed --height deviation with respect to the first surface that is a shortening of a wall of the hole-- {instant claim 1}, --a sink defined by a shortening of a wall of the hole with respect to the first surface-- {instant claim 19}, and --an indentation-- {instant claim 27}.)
Regarding Claims 2 and 20: Yamada teaches that the hole perforates the second surface (figure 2 of Yamada).
Regarding Claim 3: Yamada teaches that the height deviation has a further feature selected from a group consisting of: the height deviation completely surrounds the hole; and the height deviation has lateral dimensions of 63 µm (figure 2 and Table 1 of Yamada); which anticipates the claimed ranges of --greater than 5 µm, greater than 8 µm, greater than 10 µm, greater than 0 and less than 5 mm, greater than 0 and less than 3 mm, and greater than 0 and less than 1 mm--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 4: Yamada teaches a thickness of between 50 µm to 2000 µm (e.g., 405 µm) ([0008], [0085], and [0099] of Yamada).
Regarding Claim 6: Yamada teaches that the hole is a channel that extends through the glass element from the first surface to the second surface and perforates both the first and second surfaces (figure 2 of Yamada).
Regarding Claim 8: Yamada teaches that the height deviation has a symmetrical shape (figure 2 and [0101] of Yamada).
Regarding Claim 22: Yamada teaches that the sink has a symmetrical shape (figure 2 and [0101] of Yamada).
Regarding Claim 24: Yamada teaches that the sink has a height of 0.4 µm and a lateral dimension of 68 µm (figure 2 and Table 1 of Yamada); which anticipates the claimed ranges of a height --greater than 0.005 µm, greater than 0.05 µm, and greater than 0 and less than 0.5 µm-- and/or a lateral dimension --greater than 5 µm, greater than 8 µm, greater than 10 µm, greater than 0 and less than 5 mm, greater than 0 and less than 3 mm, and greater than 0 and less than 1 mm--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 29: Yamada teaches that the indentation has a symmetrical shape (figure 2 and [0101] of Yamada).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esemann et al. (US 2019/0329252 A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 4: Esemann discloses that the platelike glass sheet have a thickness of at most 300 micrometers ([0123] of Esemann); which overlaps the presently claimed range of --between 10 µm and 4 mm-- . Esemann differs from the claims by failing to disclose an anticipatory example or a range that is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range. However, it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Esemann, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Conclusion
Applicants' 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571)270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays off.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781