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
The amendments filed 03/19/2026 have been entered. Claim 12 has been canceled. Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response, while bona fide, failed to address the objection to the specification previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 01/20/2026, hereinafter NFOA0120. This objection is thus maintained.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously set forth in NFOA0120.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1, 11, and 17 have been considered but are moot because they pertain to limitations added by way of amendment that were not present at the time of NFOA0120.
Nevertheless, for clarity of the record, relevant arguments are addressed.
Applicant argues that, while Casares discloses two multi-aperture plates which are capable of relative horizontal positional adjustment via an actuator, Casares teaches to align apertures, rather than offset them.
This argument is not convincing because the claims at issue pertain to apparatuses, and the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of such functional limitations of an apparatus requires that the prior art apparatus need only be capable of performing the claimed capabilities. If the prior art device is capable of horizontally displacing the first multi-aperture plate relative to the second multi-aperture plate, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand it to be capable of aligning the apertures relative to one another arbitrarily, as the actuators in such particle beam arts are very precise, and would be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan to be capable of very fine positional control, including arbitrary alignment of the two plates. While the preferred usage of Casares is to align the apertures, the apparatus of Casares is clearly capable of aligning the apertures to be offset, which is all that is required under the BRI. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not convincing, because they have not established a distinction over the applied prior art under the BRI, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0066] recites “operation 193”, which should read ‘operation 1193’.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 17-18, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 has been erroneously amended to omit an article; In particular, the claim reads “…the other one of first plate or the second plate…”, which should read ‘…the other one of the first plate or the second plate…’;
Claim 17 has been amended herein to recite “…wherein one or both of the first plate [[and]] -or the second plate are…”, however claims 18 and 20 recite “…one or both of the first plate and the second plate…” (Emphasis added by Examiner); It is unclear why Applicant has amended ‘and’ to ‘or’ in claim 17, but this is now inconsistent with claims 18 and 20, and ‘both of the first plate or the second plate’ does not make sense upon plain reading, while the previous grammar had no such issue; Examiner believes ‘or’ should be amended back to ‘and’ in claim 17 to maintain consistency with the claims that depend on claim 17 and to maintain clarity that ‘both’ requires ‘the first plate and the second plate’.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 13 and 20 are 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “…wherein the second plate is configured to be displaced in a plane substantially parallel to the top surface of the collector plate.”, which is vague and indefinite because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim i.e. the claim does not recite any structure capable of displacing the second plate and does not connect to any other structure of claim 11 that is capable of doing so, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the apparatus in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim, and it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…wherein the second plate is configured to be displaceable in a plane substantially parallel to the top surface of the collector plate.’. Examiner notes that this issue is not present in claim 17 due to the specific wording ‘…configured to be displaceable…’, which limits the capability of the plate in a way that does not necessarily require the actual capability to displace the plate, which would require a structure to do so.
Claim 20 recites “…wherein one or both of the first plate and the second plate being displaceable is driven by an actuator that is…”, however, it is unclear what is required by ‘being displaceable is driven by’, as this does not make sense upon plain reading. Claim 17 requires that the plates be displaceable, which is a property of the plates, separate of any actuator or driving mechanism. As such it is unclear how the plates being displaceable can be ‘driven’ by an actuator. The actual displacement can be driven by an actuator, however, ‘being displaceable’ logically cannot. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…wherein one or both of the first plate and the second plate are configured to be driven by an actuator this is…’.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casares (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20090114818 A1) in view of Bateman (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20040227070 A1).
Examiner notes that Casares and Bateman are Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 02/07/2025.
Regarding claim 1, Casares teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a first plate with an array of first openings (Abstract; [0212]; [0216]; Examiner notes that any of the first, second, or third multi-aperture plates of Casares reads on this limitation),
a second plate with an array of second openings below the first plate (Abstract; [0212]; [0216]; Examiner notes that either the first or second multi-aperture plate of Casares reads on this limitation),
an actuator coupled to the first plate or the second plate, wherein the actuator is configured to displace one of the first plate or the second plate such that the second openings are horizontally offset from the first openings along a vertical direction ([0070]; [0081]; [0084]; [0087]; [0177]; [0252]; Examiner notes that the BRI of this limitation is an actuator that is capable of displacing one of the plates such that the openings are horizontally offset, but not that such a method step is performed; The device of Casares is capable of horizontally offsetting its multi-aperture plates); and
a third plate below the second plate (Abstract; [0212]; [0216]; [0252]; Examiner notes that the most downstream of the four aperture plates reads on this limitation),
Casares does not explicitly teach wherein the first plate is electrically conductive and wherein the second plate is electrically conductive and wherein the third plate is electrically conductive.
However, while Casares discloses ([0067]) the first and second plates as being formed of semiconductor material, Casares also discloses coating the first and second plates with conductive materials ([0068]), which could be reasonably interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art to be functionally equivalent to the plates being electrically conductive themselves. In fact, Casares discusses such coatings as being particularly advantageous when a potential is applied to the multi-aperture plate.
Nevertheless, Bateman teaches wherein the first plate is electrically conductive and wherein the second plate is electrically conductive and wherein the third plate is electrically conductive (See Figs. 2-3, items 17a, 17b, 17c; [0146]; [0152]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Casares to explicitly include wherein the first plate is electrically conductive and wherein the second plate is electrically conductive and wherein the third plate is electrically conductive, as taught by Bateman.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as the use of conductive materials being used for aperture plates is well-represented in the prior art in a manner that an ordinarily skilled artisan would be reasonably apprised thereof, and would know and understand how and why to apply such a material choice, such as allowing for further control of charging and potentials of the plates, which in turn allows for better control of the conditions of the particles that make up the particle beams passing therethrough.
Regarding claim 2, Casares in view of Bateman teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Casares does not explicitly teach wherein the third plate is coupled to a charge collection circuit.
However, Casares teaches in [0102] that “Other methods of determining a total beam current directly or indirectly, such as measuring a charge building up on an particle-optical component in a system or the like, are also conceivable.”, indicating knowledge of such charge collection arrangements. Casares also discloses a detector arrangement in [0224]-[0225] and [0252], which could also reasonably be interpreted as reading on the third plate, as the detector is disclosed to include microchannel plate detectors.
Nevertheless, Bateman further teaches wherein the third plate is coupled to a charge collection circuit ([0143]; [0149]).
Regarding claim 3, Casares in view of Bateman teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Casares further teaches wherein the first plate can be actuated between a first position and a second position, wherein the first position allows for a first line to pass through the first plate and the second plate and intersect the third plate at a first angle, and wherein the second position allows for a second line to pass through the first plate and the second plate and intersect the third plate at a second angle ([0070]; [0081]; [0084]; [0087]; [0177]; [0252]; Examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim merely requires the capability to achieve such functionality, not the actual performance of the functions, as the claim pertains to an apparatus; The actuators of Casares are capable of actuation between arbitrary relative positions of each of the multi-aperture plates, which would inherently allow for first and second lines to pass through the two plates and intersect the downstream third plate at different angles).
Regarding claim 4, Casares in view of Bateman teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Casares further teaches wherein the first plate, the second plate, and the third plate are configured to be held at different voltages ([0067-[0068]; [0100]-[0109]; [0112]-[0123];l [0236]-[0250]; See also: Claim 29; Examiner notes that the first, second, and third plates being ‘configured to be held’ at different voltages merely requires that each of the plates are capable of being held at different voltages; The various plates of Casares are capable of being held at arbitrary voltages).
Regarding claim 5, Casares in view of Bateman teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Casares further teaches further comprising:
a second actuator, wherein the second actuator is coupled to the other one of [the] first plate or the second plate that is not coupled to the actuator, and wherein the actuator and the second actuator can displace the first plate and the second plate in different directions ([0070]; [0081]; [0084]; [0087]; [0177]; [0252]; Examiner notes that the capabilities claimed are satisfied by the disclosed actuators of Casares).
Regarding claim 6, Casares in view of Bateman teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Casares further teaches further comprising:
a fourth plate with third openings over the first plate, wherein the fourth plate is configured to be held at a different voltage than the first plate ([0074]-[0083]; [0122]; [0216]; [0251]; Examiner notes that ‘configured to be held’ is again interpreted as merely requiring the capability).
Regarding claim 7, Casares in view of Bateman teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Casares further teaches further comprising:
a fourth plate between the second plate and the third plate, wherein the fourth plate is configured to be held at a voltage different than the second plate and the third plate ([0084]-[0088]; [0109]-[0111]; [0177]-[0180]; [0252]; Examiner notes that ‘configured to be held’ is again interpreted as merely requiring the capability).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casares (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20090114818 A1) in view of Bateman (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20040227070 A1) and Tyminski (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20220293390 A1).
Examiner notes that Tyminski is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 02/07/2025.
Regarding claim 8, Casares in view of Bateman teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Casares does not explicitly teach wherein the actuator is an electrostatic actuator, a piezoelectric actuator, a thermally driven actuator, or a memory-alloy actuator.
However, typical actuation technology for multi-aperture plates is generally known, and one of ordinary skill in the art could readily apply such conventional actuation technology.
Nevertheless, Tyminski teaches wherein the actuator is an electrostatic actuator, a piezoelectric actuator, a thermally driven actuator, or a memory-alloy actuator ([0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Casares to explicitly include wherein the actuator is an electrostatic actuator, a piezoelectric actuator, a thermally driven actuator, or a memory-alloy actuator, as taught by Tyminski.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to use typical actuation technology for the disclosed actuators of Casares, which are not limited to any particular kind of actuator.
Claims 9-10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casares (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20090114818 A1) in view of Bateman (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20040227070 A1) and Brechtel (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20170356879 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Casares in view of Bateman teaches the apparatus of claim 7.
Casares does not explicitly teach wherein the actuator is a comb drive.
However, the general use of a comb drive as an actuator is well-represented in the prior art such that an ordinarily skilled artisan would be reasonably apprised of such technology.
Nevertheless, Brechtel teaches the use of a comb drive actuator ([0013]; [0032]-[0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Casares to explicitly include wherein the actuator is a comb drive, as taught by Brechtel.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to use typical actuation technology for the disclosed actuators of Casares.
Regarding claim 10, Casares in view of Bateman teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Casares does not explicitly teach wherein the second plate comprises spring arms.
However, the general use of springs to provide a centering bias coupled with a displacing actuator to controllably deform the springs to adjust the position of an object is well-represented in the prior art, and an ordinarily skilled artisan would be reasonably apprised of such technology.
Nevertheless, Brechtel teaches the use of a comb drive actuator and spring elements which could be reasonably interpreted as ‘arms’ to provide controlled displacement and a restoring force when the controlled displacement is removed ([0013]; [0032]-[0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Casares to explicitly include the spring-actuator system of Brechtel to achieve wherein the second plate comprises spring arms.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to use typical actuation technology for the disclosed actuators of Casares.
Claims 11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casares (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20090114818 A1) in view of Tyminski (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20220293390 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Casares teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a substrate (See Figs. 10; [0252], detector arrangement D, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to include a substrate); and
a sensor on the substrate (See Figs. 10; [0252], detector arrangement D), wherein the sensor comprises:
a collector plate ([0252], detector arrangement D has a plate morphology, and the detection elements being on the surface exposed to the beam(s) would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as reading on a collector plate forming a sensing element);
a first plate with first openings over the collector (See Figs. 9-11, items 613 or 614 or 619; [0251]-[0254]), wherein the first plate is configured to be displaced in a plane substantially parallel to a top surface of the collector plate ([0070]; [0081]; [0084]; [0087]; [0177]; [0251]-[0254]; See also [0069]); and
a second plate with second openings over the first plate (See Figs. 9-10, item 613 or 619; [0251]-[0254]), wherein the first plate is configured to be displaced in the plane by an actuator such that the second openings are horizontally offset from the first openings along a vertical direction ([0070]; [0081]; [0084]; [0087]; [0177]; [0252]; Examiner notes that the BRI of this limitation is an actuator that is capable of displacing the first plate such that the two sets of openings are horizontally offset, but not that such a method step is performed; The device of Casares is capable of horizontally offsetting its multi-aperture plates).
Casares does not explicitly teach a single embodiment in which the sensor includes each of the collector plate, the first plate, and the second plate forming a part of the sensor on the substrate (i.e., a unitary sensing element), and rather discloses the sensor elements as being merely in close proximity. However, Casares also separately discloses embodiments in which the various aperture plates are joined by spacers in a similar manner to the embodiment of Applicant’s disclosure which supports the sensor including each of these elements on the substrate. Accordingly, Casares merely lacks disposing such joined plates on the detector arrangement.
Tyminski discloses the use of an aperture plate disposed on a sensing element, separated therefrom by an insulating spacer in order to sense charged particles (See Figs. 1, items 122, 124, and 120/126), which provide the instruction missing from Casares to dispose such an aperture plate arrangement on a sensing element via insulating spacers in the same way Casares provides insulating spacers between different aperture plates.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Casares to include disposing the first and second plates on the substrate, to form a unitary sensor using the disclosed insulating spacers and aperture plates, as taught by Tyminski, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Doing so would further be obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan because the aperture plates of Casares form the same portion of the sensing arrangement as the first and second plates required by the claim, and merely lacked instruction to dispose such sensing elements on the substrate, which is provided by Tyminski, and facilitated by the similar use of insulating spacers by Tyminski and Casares. Doing so further represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to form a unitary sensing element from elements taught in the prior art to be in plural components functioning in the same manner.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Casares in view of Tyminski teaches the apparatus of claim 11.
Casares further teaches wherein the second plate is configured to be displace[able] in a plane substantially parallel to the top surface of the collector plate ([0070]; [0081]; [0084]; [0087]; [0177]; [0252]).
Regarding claim 14, Casares in view of Tyminski teaches the apparatus of claim 11.
Casares further teaches further comprising a third plate with third openings over the second plate (See Figs. 9-10, item 619; [0252]).
Regarding claim 15, Casares in view of Tyminski teaches the apparatus of claim 11.
Casares further teaches further comprising a third plate with third openings between the collector and the first plate (See Figs. 9-10, item 614, in the case in which 613 is interpreted as the first plate is 613 and the second is 619; [0251]-[0254]).
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casares (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20090114818 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Casares teaches the apparatus of claim 11.
Casares does not explicitly teach further comprising:
a plurality of second sensors on the substrate.
However, Casares discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality of sensors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Casares to include plural sensors since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Doing so would allow one to apply the techniques and apparatuses of Casares to plural locations on a substrate.
Regarding claim 17, Casares teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a substrate (See Figs. 10; [0252], detector arrangement D, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to include a substrate);
a collector, wherein the collector is configured to measure a current induced by ions that collide with the collector ([0102]-[0103]; [0252], detector arrangement D a plate morphology, and the detection elements being on the surface exposed to the beam(s) would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as reading on a collector plate); and
an ion filter over the collector (See Figs. 9-10; [0252]), wherein the ion filter comprises:
a first plate with first openings (See Figs. 9-10, items 613, 614, or 619; [0252]); and
a second plate with second openings over the first plate (See Figs. 9-10, items 619 or 613; [0252]),
wherein one or both of the first plate [and] the second plate are displaceable in a plane substantially parallel to a top surface of the collector plate such that the second openings are horizontally offset from the first openings along a vertical direction ([0070]; [0081]; [0084]; [0087]; [0177]; [0252]; Examiner notes that the BRI of this limitation is an actuator that is capable of displacing the first plate such that the two sets of openings are horizontally offset, but not that such a method step is performed; The device of Casares is capable of horizontally offsetting its multi-aperture plates).
Casares does not explicitly teach a plurality of sensors distributed across a surface of the substrate.
However, Casares discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality of sensors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Casares to include plural sensors since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Doing so would allow one to apply the techniques and apparatuses of Casares to plural locations on a substrate.
Regarding claim 18, Casares, as modified, teaches the apparatus of claim 17.
Casares further teaches wherein one or both of the first plate and the second plate being displaceable enables detection of ions traveling at different angles relative to the collector ([0070]; [0081]; [0084]; [0087]; [0177]; [0252]; Examiner notes that the two plates being displaceable relative to one another inherently ‘enables’ detection of ions traveling at different angles relative to the collector, under the BRI).
Regarding claim 19, Casares, as modified, teaches the apparatus of claim 17.
Casares further teaches further comprising:
an electron filter over the ion filter (See Figs. 9-10, item 619 or 620; [0252]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casares (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20090114818 A1) in view of Tyminski (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20220293390 A1).
Regarding claim 20, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Casares, as modified, teaches the apparatus of claim 17.
Casares further teaches wherein one or both of the first plate and the second plate [are configured to be] driven by an actuator ([0070]; [0081]; [0084]; [0087]; [0177]; [0252])
Casares does not explicitly teach an actuator that is an electrostatic actuator, a piezoelectric actuator, a thermally driven actuator, or a memory-alloy actuator (Emphasis added by Examiner).
However, typical actuation technology for multi-aperture plates is generally known, and one of ordinary skill in the art could readily apply such conventional actuation technology.
Nevertheless, Tyminski teaches an actuator that is an electrostatic actuator, a piezoelectric actuator, a thermally driven actuator, or a memory-alloy actuator ([0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Casares to explicitly include an actuator that is an electrostatic actuator, a piezoelectric actuator, a thermally driven actuator, or a memory-alloy actuator, as taught by Tyminski.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to use typical actuation technology for the disclosed actuators of Casares which are not limited to any particular kind of actuator.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, ROBERT H KIM can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights