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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 04/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-15 and 20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/10/2026.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 16-19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “the arrangement of the continuous long Josephson junction being approximated by a repeating sequence of a grounded Josephson junction and an inductor to provide a critical current and inductance that define a soliton energy of a soliton propagating in the continuous long Josephson junction” in lines 9-12 however it is unclear in what way the continuous long Josephson junction is being approximated for example structurally or whether the claim only requires specific electoral properties of the long josephson junction to be approximated and it is further unclear how nearly approximated the long josephson junction itself or the properties need to be approximated for the purpose of examination the limitation will be interpreted only to require a long continuous josephson junction meets the limitation.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites “each of the continuous long Josephson junction portions is approximated by a structure of a grounded Josephson junction and an inductor to provide a portion critical current and a portion inductance, such that the arrangement of the continuous long Josephson junction has a critical current that is a sum of the portion critical current of each of the N continuous long Josephson junction and an inductance that is a sum of the portion inductance of each of the N continuous long Josephson junction” in lines 11-16 however it is unclear in what way the continuous long Josephson junction portions are being approximated for example structurally or whether the claim only requires specific electoral properties of the long josephson junction to be approximated and it is further unclear how nearly approximated the long josephson junction itself or the properties need to be approximated for the purpose of examination the limitation will be interpreted only to require a long continuous josephson junction meets the limitation.
Regarding claims 2-8 and 17-19, the claims are dependent on and require all the limitations of claim 1 or 16 and are therefore rejected for the same reason as claims 1 or 16.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-8 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crete et. Al. (US 20060049891 A1 hereinafter Crete) and further in view of Rajeevakumar (US 4361768 A).
Regarding claim 1, Crete teaches in Figs. 9a with associated text a long Josephson junction gate system comprising a continuous long Josephson junction (Fig. 9a [0073]), the continuous long Josephson junction comprising: a dielectric layer; an electrode layer 22 (Fig. 9a, [0073]) formed on the dielectric layer; a dielectric oxide layer 20 formed on the electrode layer (Fig. 9a, [0073]); and a metallic signal layer 21 formed on the dielectric oxide layer (Fig. 9a, [0073]).
Crete does not specify in the embodiment of Fig. 9a a dielectric layer; and the electrode layer is formed on the dielectric layer
Crete discloses in Fig. 10a with associated text a structure with a dielectric layer 12 [0082]; and an electrode layer 13 is formed on the dielectric layer (Fig. 10a, [0082])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a dielectric layer similar to that taught by the embodiment of Fig. 10A in the embodiment of Fig. 9a because according to Crete such a dielectric layer is suitable for forming a superconducting electrode [0082] furthermore one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that such a layer would be needed as a support structure for forming the embodiment on Fig. 9a.
Crete does not specify the dielectric layer, the electrode layer, the dielectric oxide layer and the metallic signal layer are extending along a soliton propagation direction on the dielectric layer and the arrangement of the continuous long Josephson junction is being approximated by a repeating sequence of a grounded Josephson junction and an inductor to provide a critical current and inductance that define a soliton energy of a soliton propagating in the continuous long Josephson junction.
Rajeevakumar teaches in Figs. 1-1.3 and 6-7 with associated text a continuous long josephson junction similar to that of Crete wherein the josephson junction is extending along a soliton propagation direction on the dielectric layer (Figs. 1-1.3, column 4, lines 55-68) and the arrangement of a continuous long Josephson junction is being approximated by a repeating sequence of a grounded Josephson junction and an inductor to provide a critical current and inductance that define a soliton energy of a soliton propagating in the continuous long Josephson junction (Fig. 6-7, column 8, lines 37-49) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use long josephson junction with the claimed properties taught by Rajeevakumar in the device of Crete a because according to Rajeevakumar isolated vortices can be created and moved in long Josephson transmission lines. These are the well known Josephson solitons which are phase waves of the type shown in FIG. 1.1. In this FIG., the phase wave 10 is propagating in the +x direction (column 4, lines 55-68) and the transmission lines 46, 50, and 54 are represented by the inductors L and the point junctions 74 (column 8, lines 37-49) so that the device of Crete which has the same geometry would have the similar properties. Language in an apparatus or product claim directed to the function, operation, intent-of-use, and materials upon which the components of the structure work that does not structurally limit the components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus or product from an otherwise identical prior art structure will not support patentability. See, e.g., In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 344-45 (CCPA 1952); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939-40 (CCPA 1963); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64 (CCPA 1971); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1973). The patentability of an apparatus claim depends only on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure, Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002), or the function or result of that structure. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 848 (CCPA 1959). Please also see M.P.E.P. 2114 [R-1]. The following italicized limitations of claim 1 lines 3-9 are understood to be functional (i.e. extending along a soliton propagation direction on the dielectric layer and being approximated by a repeating sequence of a grounded Josephson junction and an inductor to provide a critical current and inductance that define a soliton energy of a soliton propagating in the continuous long Josephson junction):
The limitation describes purpose, function, operation, or intent-of-use the long josephson junction. However, the claim does not disclose a sufficient structure which supports the function. Since Crete in view of Rajeevakumar shows an identical structure as claimed, namely the long josephson junction, the Examiner submits that the long josephson junction is capable of producing the claimed results.
Regarding claim 2, Crete in view of Rajeevakumar teaches the system of claim 1.
Crete in view of Rajeevakumar does not specify the metallic signal layer has a width of the extension along the soliton propagation direction that is selected to define the critical current and the inductance of the continuous long Josephson junction.
Language in an apparatus or product claim directed to the function, operation, intent-of-use, and materials upon which the components of the structure work that does not structurally limit the components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus or product from an otherwise identical prior art structure will not support patentability. See, e.g., In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 344-45 (CCPA 1952); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939-40 (CCPA 1963); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64 (CCPA 1971); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1973). The patentability of an apparatus claim depends only on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure, Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002), or the function or result of that structure. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 848 (CCPA 1959). Please also see M.P.E.P. 2114 [R-1]. The following italicized limitations of claim 1 lines 3-9 are understood to be functional (i.e. is selected to define the critical current and the inductance of the continuous long Josephson junction):
The limitation describes purpose, function, operation, or intent-of-use the long josephson junction. However, the claim does not disclose a sufficient structure which supports the function. Since Crete in view of Rajeevakumar shows an identical structure as claimed, namely the long josephson junction, the Examiner submits that the long josephson junction is capable of producing the claimed results.
Regarding claim 3, Crete in view of Rajeevakumar teaches the system of claim 1, the metallic signal layer has a length of the extension along the soliton propagation direction of N continuous long Josephson junction portions of approximately equal length in the sequence (any length can be divided into n equal lengths).
Regarding claim 4, Crete in view of Rajeevakumar teaches the system of claim 3.
Crete in view of Rajeevakumar does not specify each of the continuous long Josephson junction portions is approximated as a structure of the grounded Josephson junction and the inductor having a portion critical current and a portion inductance.
Language in an apparatus or product claim directed to the function, operation, intent-of-use, and materials upon which the components of the structure work that does not structurally limit the components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus or product from an otherwise identical prior art structure will not support patentability. See, e.g., In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 344-45 (CCPA 1952); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939-40 (CCPA 1963); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64 (CCPA 1971); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1973). The patentability of an apparatus claim depends only on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure, Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002), or the function or result of that structure. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 848 (CCPA 1959). Please also see M.P.E.P. 2114 [R-1]. The following italicized limitations of claim 1 lines 3-9 are understood to be functional (i.e. is approximated as a structure of the grounded Josephson junction and the inductor having a portion critical current and a portion inductance):
The limitation describes purpose, function, operation, or intent-of-use the long josephson junction. However, the claim does not disclose a sufficient structure which supports the function. Since Crete in view of Rajeevakumar shows an identical structure as claimed, namely the long josephson junction, the Examiner submits that the long josephson junction is capable of producing the claimed results.
Regarding claim 5, Crete in view of Rajeevakumar teaches the system of claim 4.
Crete in view of Rajeevakumar does not specify each continuous long Josephson junction portion has a width of the extension along the soliton propagation direction that is selected to define the portion critical current and the portion inductance.
Language in an apparatus or product claim directed to the function, operation, intent-of-use, and materials upon which the components of the structure work that does not structurally limit the components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus or product from an otherwise identical prior art structure will not support patentability. See, e.g., In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 344-45 (CCPA 1952); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939-40 (CCPA 1963); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64 (CCPA 1971); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1973). The patentability of an apparatus claim depends only on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure, Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002), or the function or result of that structure. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 848 (CCPA 1959). Please also see M.P.E.P. 2114 [R-1]. The following italicized limitations of claim 1 lines 3-9 are understood to be functional (i.e. is selected to define the portion critical current and the portion inductance):
The limitation describes purpose, function, operation, or intent-of-use the long josephson junction. However, the claim does not disclose a sufficient structure which supports the function. Since Crete in view of Rajeevakumar shows an identical structure as claimed, namely the long josephson junction, the Examiner submits that the long josephson junction is capable of producing the claimed results.
Regarding claim 6, Crete in view of Rajeevakumar teaches the system of claim 5.
Crete in view of Rajeevakumar does not specify the portion critical current and the portion inductance is approximately equal to 1/N times the critical current and the inductance of the continuous long Josephson junction.
Language in an apparatus or product claim directed to the function, operation, intent-of-use, and materials upon which the components of the structure work that does not structurally limit the components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus or product from an otherwise identical prior art structure will not support patentability. See, e.g., In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 344-45 (CCPA 1952); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939-40 (CCPA 1963); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64 (CCPA 1971); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1973). The patentability of an apparatus claim depends only on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure, Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002), or the function or result of that structure. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 848 (CCPA 1959). Please also see M.P.E.P. 2114 [R-1]. The following italicized limitations of claim 1 lines 3-9 are understood to be functional (i.e. the portion critical current and the portion inductance is approximately equal to 1/N times the critical current and the inductance of the continuous long Josephson junction):
The limitation describes purpose, function, operation, or intent-of-use the long josephson junction. However, the claim does not disclose a sufficient structure which supports the function. Since Crete in view of Rajeevakumar shows an identical structure as claimed, namely the long josephson junction, the Examiner submits that the long josephson junction is capable of producing the claimed results.
Regarding claim 7, Crete in view of Rajeevakumar teaches the system of claim 3, the N units corresponding to each continuous long Josephson junction portion is formed as a unitary structure with respect to the electrode layer, the dielectric oxide layer, and the metallic signal layer (the long josephson junction is continuous Crete Fig. 9a).
Regarding claim 8, Crete in view of Rajeevakumar teaches a superconducting circuit comprising the long Josephson junction gate system of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Crete teaches in Figs. 9a with associated text a long Josephson junction gate system comprising a continuous long Josephson junction, the continuous long Josephson junction (Fig. 9a [0073]) comprising: an electrode layer 22 (Fig. 9a, [0073]); a dielectric oxide layer 20 formed on the electrode layer (Fig. 9a, [0073]); and a metallic signal layer 21 formed on the dielectric oxide layer (Fig. 9a, [0073]) and extending entirely over the dielectric oxide layer at a length of N continuous long Josephson junction portions of approximately equal length (any long josephson junction is dividable into portions Fig. 9a, [0073]), wherein each of the continuous long Josephson junction portions is approximated by a structure of a grounded Josephson junction and an inductor to provide a portion critical current and a portion inductance, such that the arrangement of the continuous long Josephson junction has a critical current that is a sum of the portion critical current of each of the N continuous long Josephson junction and an inductance that is a sum of the portion inductance of each of the N continuous long Josephson junction.
Crete does not specify in the embodiment of Fig. 9a a dielectric layer; and the electrode layer is formed on the dielectric layer
Crete discloses in Fig. 10a with associated text a structure with a dielectric layer 12 [0082]; and an electrode layer 13 is formed on the dielectric layer (Fig. 10a, [0082])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a dielectric layer similar to that taught by the embodiment of Fig. 10A in the embodiment of Fig. 9a because according to Crete such a dielectric layer is suitable for forming a superconducting electrode [0082] furthermore one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that such a layer would be needed as a support structure for forming the embodiment on Fig. 9a.
Crete does not specify the dielectric layer, the electrode layer, the dielectric oxide layer and the metallic signal layer are extending along a soliton propagation direction on the dielectric layer and each of the continuous long Josephson junction portions is approximated by a structure of a grounded Josephson junction and an inductor to provide a portion critical current and a portion inductance, such that the arrangement of the continuous long Josephson junction has a critical current that is a sum of the portion critical current of each of the N continuous long Josephson junction and an inductance that is a sum of the portion inductance of each of the N continuous long Josephson junction.
Rajeevakumar teaches in Figs. 1-1.3 and 6-7 with associated text a continuous long josephson junction similar to that of Crete wherein the josephson junction is extending along a soliton propagation direction on the dielectric layer (Figs. 1-1.3, column 4, lines 55-68) and the arrangement of a continuous long Josephson junction is being approximated by a repeating sequence of a grounded Josephson junction and an inductor to provide a critical current and inductance that define a soliton energy of a soliton propagating in the continuous long Josephson junction (Fig. 6-7, column 8, lines 37-49) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use long josephson junction with the claimed properties taught by Rajeevakumar in the device of Crete a because according to Rajeevakumar isolated vortices can be created and moved in long Josephson transmission lines. These are the well known Josephson solitons which are phase waves of the type shown in FIG. 1.1. In this FIG., the phase wave 10 is propagating in the +x direction (column 4, lines 55-68) and the transmission lines 46, 50, and 54 are represented by the inductors L and the point junctions 74 (column 8, lines 37-49) so that the device of Crete which has the same geometry would have the similar properties. Language in an apparatus or product claim directed to the function, operation, intent-of-use, and materials upon which the components of the structure work that does not structurally limit the components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus or product from an otherwise identical prior art structure will not support patentability. See, e.g., In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 344-45 (CCPA 1952); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939-40 (CCPA 1963); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64 (CCPA 1971); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1973). The patentability of an apparatus claim depends only on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure, Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002), or the function or result of that structure. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 848 (CCPA 1959). Please also see M.P.E.P. 2114 [R-1]. The following italicized limitations of claim 1 lines 3-9 are understood to be functional (i.e. extending along a soliton propagation direction on the dielectric layer and is approximated by a structure of a grounded Josephson junction and an inductor to provide a portion critical current and a portion inductance, such that the arrangement of the continuous long Josephson junction has a critical current that is a sum of the portion critical current of each of the N continuous long Josephson junction and an inductance that is a sum of the portion inductance of each of the N continuous long Josephson junction):
The limitation describes purpose, function, operation, or intent-of-use the long josephson junction. However, the claim does not disclose a sufficient structure which supports the function. Since Crete in view of Rajeevakumar shows an identical structure as claimed, namely the long josephson junction, the Examiner submits that the long josephson junction is capable of producing the claimed results.
Regarding claim 17, Crete in view of Rajeevakumar teaches the circuit of claim 16.
Crete in view of Rajeevakumar does not specify each continuous long Josephson junction portion has a width of the extension along the soliton propagation direction that is selected to define the portion critical current and the portion inductance, wherein the portion critical current and the portion inductance is approximately equal to 1/N times the critical current and the inductance of the continuous long Josephson junction.
Language in an apparatus or product claim directed to the function, operation, intent-of-use, and materials upon which the components of the structure work that does not structurally limit the components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus or product from an otherwise identical prior art structure will not support patentability. See, e.g., In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 344-45 (CCPA 1952); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939-40 (CCPA 1963); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64 (CCPA 1971); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1973). The patentability of an apparatus claim depends only on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure, Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002), or the function or result of that structure. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 848 (CCPA 1959). Please also see M.P.E.P. 2114 [R-1]. The following italicized limitations of claim 1 lines 3-9 are understood to be functional (i.e. is selected to define the portion critical current and the portion inductance, wherein the portion critical current and the portion inductance is approximately equal to 1/N times the critical current and the inductance of the continuous long Josephson junction):
The limitation describes purpose, function, operation, or intent-of-use the long josephson junction. However, the claim does not disclose a sufficient structure which supports the function. Since Crete in view of Rajeevakumar shows an identical structure as claimed, namely the long josephson junction, the Examiner submits that the long josephson junction is capable of producing the claimed results.
Regarding claim 18, Crete in view of Rajeevakumar teaches the circuit of claim 16.
Crete in view of Rajeevakumar does not specify the metallic signal layer has a width of the extension along the soliton propagation direction that is selected to define the critical current and inductance of the continuous long Josephson junction.
Language in an apparatus or product claim directed to the function, operation, intent-of-use, and materials upon which the components of the structure work that does not structurally limit the components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus or product from an otherwise identical prior art structure will not support patentability. See, e.g., In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 344-45 (CCPA 1952); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939-40 (CCPA 1963); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64 (CCPA 1971); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1973). The patentability of an apparatus claim depends only on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure, Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002), or the function or result of that structure. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 848 (CCPA 1959). Please also see M.P.E.P. 2114 [R-1]. The following italicized limitations of claim 1 lines 3-9 are understood to be functional (i.e. is selected to define the critical current and inductance of the continuous long Josephson junction):
The limitation describes purpose, function, operation, or intent-of-use the long josephson junction. However, the claim does not disclose a sufficient structure which supports the function. Since Crete in view of Rajeevakumar shows an identical structure as claimed, namely the long josephson junction, the Examiner submits that the long josephson junction is capable of producing the claimed results.
Regarding claim 19, Crete in view of Rajeevakumar teaches the circuit of claim 16.
Crete in view of Rajeevakumar does not specify each continuous long Josephson junction portion has a width of the extension along the soliton propagation direction that is selected to define the portion critical current and the portion inductance.
Language in an apparatus or product claim directed to the function, operation, intent-of-use, and materials upon which the components of the structure work that does not structurally limit the components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus or product from an otherwise identical prior art structure will not support patentability. See, e.g., In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 344-45 (CCPA 1952); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939-40 (CCPA 1963); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64 (CCPA 1971); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1973). The patentability of an apparatus claim depends only on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure, Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002), or the function or result of that structure. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 848 (CCPA 1959). Please also see M.P.E.P. 2114 [R-1]. The following italicized limitations of claim 1 lines 3-9 are understood to be functional (i.e. is selected to define the portion critical current and the portion inductance):
The limitation describes purpose, function, operation, or intent-of-use the long josephson junction. However, the claim does not disclose a sufficient structure which supports the function. Since Crete in view of Rajeevakumar shows an identical structure as claimed, namely the long josephson junction, the Examiner submits that the long josephson junction is capable of producing the claimed results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-7629. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-4pm.
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, Toledo Fernando can be reached on 5712721867. 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.
/AARON J GRAY/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights