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 .
Summary
This action is responsive to the application filed on 12/04/2025. Applicant has submitted Claims 1-8 & 10-14 for examination.
Examiner finds the following: 1) Claims 1-8 & 10-14 are rejected; 2) no claims objected to; and 3) no claims allowable.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of Application No. KR10-2023-0005335, filed on 01/13/2023, has been filed in this matter.
Response to Arguments and Remarks
Examiner respectfully acknowledges Applicant's arguments, remarks, and amendments.
Regarding the amendments and remarks about “direct light,” Examiner agrees but does not find the distinction relevant to the claims.
Applicant argues that in the claimed invention, the light emitted from the light emitter 110 passes through the smoke, allowing direct light rays from the light emitter 110 to reach the second light detector 130. Examiner generally agrees, as Examiner cited a passage of Deliwala, [0094] (emphasis added):
The light source distribution is varied by changing the geometry of the barriers while making sure that no direct light rays from the light emitting diode reach the photodetector. The average scattering angle is computed by using equations (1) and (2)”).
However, Examiner does not understand or read the claims as limited in this manner. The relevant limitations, as Examiner understands it, are:
Claim 1: … to obtain n number of measurement values of the transmitted light by using a second light detector, the n number of measurement values corresponding to the n wavelengths; …
Claim 8: … a second light detector disposed in the chamber and configured to detect transmitted light, generated as the multi-wavelength light passes through the smoke, to obtain n number of measurement values of the transmitted light, the n number of measurement values corresponding to the n wavelengths; …
Nowhere in the claimed language does Applicant indicate that the transmitted light needs to be direct, without any intermediate components or steps. If the claims were amended to include such a limitation, Examiner, as stated above, Examiner generally agrees. As is, Examiner is not persuaded.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments Applicant argues that the prior art fails to disclose normalizing, Examiner in not persuaded.
Applicant argues that Deliwala fails to disclose normalizing the measurement values, and cites to numerous passages of Deliwala. Applicant emphasizes that Deliwala measures over a range of distances, angles, wavelengths, and, perhaps most succinctly, from Deliwala, [0109] (emphasis added)
FIGS. 4A-4D are exemplary graphs representing scattered light as a function of angle, theta, and the resultant light receive at a photodetector, within an exemplary smoke detector, in accordance with some embodiments of the disclosure provided herein. As discussed, scattering intensity is dependent on scattering angle, λ, size & shape of the particle, and also the distance.
Based on Examiner’s review of Deliwala, Examiner understands Deliwala to inherently normalize the measurement values. Throughout Deliwala, there is a note on the dependence of the measurement values based on variables that go into calculating them, something inherent to any mathematical equation. Since the intensity and the scattering are the cornerstones to Deliwala’s smoke detection, and those are dependent upon distance and angle, Deliwala must normalize those measurement values in some manner as to compare and determine if smoke is present across multiple variables. As such, Examiner is not persuaded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deliwala (US 20200363312 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Deliwala discloses:
A fire detection method (Deliwala, FIG. 1, [0085], optical smoke detector 100) comprising:
a step of detecting (Deliwala, FIG. 1, [0085], photodetector 150) scattered light generated by smoke-based scattering (Deliwala, FIG. 1, [0087], “Distance r.sub.K 170 is the distance to the smoke particle. Smoke particles 160 that are very close to the module scatter rays 190 that make very low scattering angle θ182 and very large collection solid angle dΩ to the detector”) of multi-wavelength light having n (where n is a natural number of 3 or more) number of wavelengths to obtain n number of measurement values of the scattered light by using a first light detector (Deliwala, [0098], “In some embodiments where light emitting diodes emit different wavelengths, photodetectors can be modified to accommodate the detection thereof,” and FIGS. 2A-2D, [0105], “FIGS. 2A-2D are exemplary graphs representing scattered light as a function of angle, theta, and the resultant light receive at a photodetector”) and detecting transmitted light, generated as the multi-wavelength light passes through the smoke, to obtain n number of measurement values of the transmitted light by using a second light detector, the n number of measurement values corresponding to the n wavelengths (Deliwala, FIG. 1, [0101], “In other embodiments, a plurality of detectors is implemented, e.g., at least two for wavelength such that each of the pair of the plurality is wavelength specific. For example, there are at least two detectors (PD1, PD2) for every light emitting diode for a particular lambda”);
a step of normalizing the n number of measurement values of the scattered light to generate n normalized values of scattered light and normalizing the n number of measurement values of the transmitted light to generate n normalized values of the transmitted light ([0094], “One can readily carryout these integrals for spherical particles using Mie scattering theory and calculate the average scattering angles and effect of changing the light source distribution. The light source distribution is varied by changing the geometry of the barriers while making sure that no direct light rays from the light emitting diode reach the photodetector. The average scattering angle is computed by using equations (1) and (2), ” and Deliwala, Equation 2, and FIGS. 4A-D, [0110], “Scattering intensities for particle sizes 3-9 μm for FIGS. 4A-4D, respectively, are depicted. Again, one of ordinary skill in the art will observe that scattering intensities are also dependent on wavelength λ. In the present embodiment, two colors, blue and infrared, are used to demonstrate this dependency. Other colors are not beyond the scope of the present invention. One skilled in the art will appreciate that the forward scattering begins to dominate as the particle size grows”) by using a processor (Deliwala, [0151], “One or more aspects and embodiments of the present application involving the performance of processes or methods may utilize program instructions executable by a device (e.g., a computer, a processor, or other device) to perform, or control performance of, the processes or methods”); and
a step of calculating a singular value for determining whether the smoke is caused by a fire or a non-fire by using the processor, based on the n normalized values of the scattered light and the n normalized values of the transmitted light (Deliwala, [0094], “One can readily carryout these integrals for spherical particles using Mie scattering theory and calculate the average scattering angles and effect of changing the light source distribution. The light source distribution is varied by changing the geometry of the barriers while making sure that no direct light rays from the light emitting diode reach the photodetector. The average scattering angle is computed by using equations (1) and (2)”).
Regarding Claim 2, Deliwala discloses Claim 1, and Deliwala further discloses:
… wherein the step of calculating the singular value comprises:
a step of detecting occurrence of an event estimated as a fire, based on at least one of a sum value of the n normalized values of the scattered light and a sum value of the n normalized values of the transmitted light (Deliwala, Equation 2); and
a step of calculating the singular value when the occurrence of the event is detected (Deliwala, [0094], “One can readily carryout these integrals for spherical particles using Mie scattering theory and calculate the average scattering angles and effect of changing the light source distribution. The light source distribution is varied by changing the geometry of the barriers while making sure that no direct light rays from the light emitting diode reach the photodetector. The average scattering angle is computed by using equations (1) and (2)”).
Regarding Claim 3, Deliwala discloses Claim 2, and Deliwala further discloses:
… wherein the step of detecting the occurrence of the event comprises a step of detecting the occurrence of the event, based on a comparison result obtained by comparing the at least one sum value with a threshold value (Deliwala, [0010], “The received light intensity will be reduced by absorption due to smoke, air-borne dust, or other substances; the circuitry detects the light intensity and generates the alarm if it is below a specified threshold, potentially due to smoke”).
Regarding Claim 8, Deliwala discloses:
A fire detection apparatus comprising:
a light emitter disposed in a chamber into which smoke penetrates (Deliwala, FIG. 1, [0085], photodetector 150) and configured to emit multi-wavelength light having n (where n is a natural number of 3 or more) number of wavelengths (Deliwala, [0098], “In some embodiments where light emitting diodes emit different wavelengths, photodetectors can be modified to accommodate the detection thereof”);
a first light detector disposed in the chamber and configured to detect scattered light generated by smoke-based scattering of the multi-wavelength light to obtain n number of measurement values of the scattered light, the n number of measurement values corresponding to the n wavelengths (Deliwala, FIG. 1, [0101], “In other embodiments, a plurality of detectors is implemented, e.g., at least two for wavelength such that each of the pair of the plurality is wavelength specific. For example, there are at least two detectors (PD1, PD2) for every light emitting diode for a particular lambda”);
a second light detector disposed in the chamber and configured to detect transmitted light, generated as the multi-wavelength light passes through the smoke, to obtain n number of measurement values of the transmitted light, the n number of the measurement values corresponding to the n wavelengths (Deliwala, FIG. 1, [0101], “In other embodiments, a plurality of detectors is implemented, e.g., at least two for wavelength such that each of the pair of the plurality is wavelength specific. For example, there are at least two detectors (PD1, PD2) for every light emitting diode for a particular lambda”); and
a processor (Deliwala, [0151], “One or more aspects and embodiments of the present application involving the performance of processes or methods may utilize program instructions executable by a device (e.g., a computer, a processor, or other device) to perform, or control performance of, the processes or methods”) configured to normalize the n number of measurement values of the scattered to generate n normalized values of the scattered light and normalize the n number of measurement values of the transmitted light to generate n normalized values of the transmitted light (Deliwala, [0094], “One can readily carryout these integrals for spherical particles using Mie scattering theory and calculate the average scattering angles and effect of changing the light source distribution. The light source distribution is varied by changing the geometry of the barriers while making sure that no direct light rays from the light emitting diode reach the photodetector. The average scattering angle is computed by using equations (1) and (2),” and Equation 2, and FIGS. 4A-D, [0110], “Scattering intensities for particle sizes 3-9 μm for FIGS. 4A-4D, respectively, are depicted. Again, one of ordinary skill in the art will observe that scattering intensities are also dependent on wavelength λ. In the present embodiment, two colors, blue and infrared, are used to demonstrate this dependency. Other colors are not beyond the scope of the present invention. One skilled in the art will appreciate that the forward scattering begins to dominate as the particle size grows”), and to determine whether the smoke penetrating into the chamber is caused by a fire or a non-fire, based on the n normalized values of the scattered light and the n normalized values of the transmitted light (Deliwala, [0094], “One can readily carryout these integrals for spherical particles using Mie scattering theory and calculate the average scattering angles and effect of changing the light source distribution. The light source distribution is varied by changing the geometry of the barriers while making sure that no direct light rays from the light emitting diode reach the photodetector. The average scattering angle is computed by using equations (1) and (2)”).
Regarding Claim 10, Deliwala discloses Claim 8, and Deliwala further discloses:
… wherein the processor calculates a singular value for determining whether the smoke is caused by a fire or a non-fire, based on the n normalized values of the scattered light and the n normalized values of the transmitted light (Deliwala, [0010], “The received light intensity will be reduced by absorption due to smoke, air-borne dust, or other substances; the circuitry detects the light intensity and generates the alarm if it is below a specified threshold, potentially due to smoke”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 4-5 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deliwala (US 20200363312 A1) in view of Ling (US 20240044802 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Deliwala discloses Claim 1, and Deliwala further discloses:
… wherein the step of calculating the singular value comprises:
a step of calculating … including nxn number of elements representing a similarity between the n normalized values of the scattered light and a similarity between the n normalized values of the transmitted light (Deliwala, [0094], “One can readily carryout these integrals for spherical particles using Mie scattering theory and calculate the average scattering angles and effect of changing the light source distribution. The light source distribution is varied by changing the geometry of the barriers while making sure that no direct light rays from the light emitting diode reach the photodetector. The average scattering angle is computed by using equations (1) and (2)”);
a step of calculating … including nxn number of elements for calculating an optimal distribution of elements of the first matrix in each wavelength (Deliwala, [0094], “One can readily carryout these integrals for spherical particles using Mie scattering theory and calculate the average scattering angles and effect of changing the light source distribution. The light source distribution is varied by changing the geometry of the barriers while making sure that no direct light rays from the light emitting diode reach the photodetector. The average scattering angle is computed by using equations (1) and (2)”); and …
Deliwala discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… a first matrix…
… a second matrix…
… a step of calculating an eigenvector of the second matrix as the singular value.
However, Ling, in a similar field of endeavor (SURFACE-ENHANCED RAMAN SCATTERING (SERS) PLATFORM FOR ANALYSIS), discloses:
… a first matrix (Ling, FIG. 15E, [0253], “To quantitatively evaluate the predictive capability of the SERS taster, confusion matrices using SVM-DA was constructed (FIG. 15E). SVM-DA is a supervised machine learning model that allows us to predict the identity of flavour molecules by examining their SERS super-profiles with a high degree of flexibility and robustness”) …
… a second matrix (Ling, FIG. 15E, [0253], “To quantitatively evaluate the predictive capability of the SERS taster, confusion matrices using SVM-DA was constructed (FIG. 15E). SVM-DA is a supervised machine learning model that allows us to predict the identity of flavour molecules by examining their SERS super-profiles with a high degree of flexibility and robustness”) …
… a step of calculating an eigenvector of the second matrix as the singular value (Ling, FIG. 15E, Examiner notes that due to the design of the shown matrices, the matrices of FIG. 15E would inherently have eigenvectors).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Deliwala with the matrices of Ling. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of matrices as disclosed by Ling and how to use them to modify Deliwala. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of matrices and matrix principles when analyzing sets of data.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Deliwala and Ling discloses Claim 4, and Deliwala further discloses:
… wherein the first matrix comprises the nxn elements representing a vector sum of a distance value representing the similarity between the n normalized values of the scattered light and a distance value representing the similarity between the n normalized values of the transmitted light (Deliwala, Equation 2, and [0093], “The overall signal received by the detector is of course from all particles at all possible distances”).
Regarding Claim 11, Deliwala discloses Claim 8, but Deliwala does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the processor calculates a first matrix including nxn number of elements representing a similarity between the n normalized values of the scattered light and a similarity between the n normalized values of the transmitted light, calculates a second matrix including nxn number of elements for calculating an optimal distribution of elements of the first matrix in each wavelength, and calculates an eigenvector of the second matrix as the singular value.
However, Ling, in a similar field of endeavor (SURFACE-ENHANCED RAMAN SCATTERING (SERS) PLATFORM FOR ANALYSIS), discloses:
… wherein the processor calculates a first matrix including nxn number of elements representing a similarity between the n normalized values of the scattered light and a similarity between the n normalized values of the transmitted light, calculates a second matrix including nxn number of elements for calculating an optimal distribution of elements of the first matrix in each wavelength (Ling, FIG. 15E, [0253], “To quantitatively evaluate the predictive capability of the SERS taster, confusion matrices using SVM-DA was constructed (FIG. 15E). SVM-DA is a supervised machine learning model that allows us to predict the identity of flavour molecules by examining their SERS super-profiles with a high degree of flexibility and robustness”), and calculates an eigenvector of the second matrix as the singular value (Ling, FIG. 15E, Examiner notes that due to the design of the shown matrices, the matrices of FIG. 15E would inherently have eigenvectors).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Deliwala with the matrices of Ling. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of matrices as disclosed by Ling and how to use them to modify Deliwala. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of matrices and matrix principles when analyzing sets of data.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Deliwala and Ling discloses Claim 11, and Deliwala further discloses:
… wherein the processor calculates the first matrix including the nxn elements representing a vector sum of a distance value representing the similarity between the n normalized values of the scattered light and a distance value representing the similarity between the n normalized values of the transmitted light (Deliwala, Equation 2, and [0093], “The overall signal received by the detector is of course from all particles at all possible distances”).
Claims 6-7 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deliwala (US 20200363312 A1), in view of Ling (US 20240044802 A1), and in further view of McQuilkin (US 20160069743 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Deliwala and Ling discloses Claim 4, and further discloses:
… wherein the eigenvector comprises n number of eigenvectors (Examiner notes that one or more eigenvectors is inherent from Claim 4), and …
However, McQuilkin, in a similar field of endeavor (SPECTRAL IMAGING SYSTEM FOR REMOTE AND NONINVASIVE DETECTION OF TARGET SUBSTANCES USING SPECTRAL FILTER ARRAYS AND IMAGE CAPTURE ARRAYS), discloses:
… the fire detection method further comprises a step of analyzing a ratio of the n eigenvectors to determine whether the smoke is caused by a fire or a non-fire (McQuilkin, [0170], “Examples of algorithm methods include, but are not limited to, eigenvector, basis function, least squares, principle component analysis, ratios, differences, matched filter, neural networks, cross-correlation, multivariate analysis, and numerous classification methods”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Deliwala and Ling with the analysis methods of McQuilkin. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of the analysis methods as disclosed by McQuilkin and how to use them to modify the combination of Deliwala and Ling. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of known analysis methods in similar systems.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Deliwala and Ling discloses Claim 4, and further discloses:
… wherein the eigenvector comprises n number of eigenvectors (Examiner notes that one or more eigenvectors is inherent from Claim 4), and the fire detection method further comprises:
However, McQuilkin, in a similar field of endeavor (SPECTRAL IMAGING SYSTEM FOR REMOTE AND NONINVASIVE DETECTION OF TARGET SUBSTANCES USING SPECTRAL FILTER ARRAYS AND IMAGE CAPTURE ARRAYS), discloses:
… a step of converting a ratio of the n number of eigenvectors into a plurality of angular values; and
a step of analyzing a relationship between the plurality of angular values to determine whether the smoke is caused by a fire or a non-fire (McQuilkin, [0170], “Examples of algorithm methods include, but are not limited to, eigenvector, basis function, least squares, principle component analysis, ratios, differences, matched filter, neural networks, cross-correlation, multivariate analysis, and numerous classification methods”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Deliwala and Ling with the analysis methods of McQuilkin. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of the analysis methods as disclosed by McQuilkin and how to use them to modify the combination of Deliwala and Ling. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of known analysis methods in similar systems.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Deliwala and Ling discloses Claim 11, and further discloses:
… wherein the eigenvector comprises n number of eigenvectors (Examiner notes that one or more eigenvectors is inherent from Claim 11), and …
However, McQuilkin, in a similar field of endeavor (SPECTRAL IMAGING SYSTEM FOR REMOTE AND NONINVASIVE DETECTION OF TARGET SUBSTANCES USING SPECTRAL FILTER ARRAYS AND IMAGE CAPTURE ARRAYS), discloses:
… the processor analyzes a ratio of the n number of eigenvectors to determine whether the smoke is caused by a fire or a non-fire (McQuilkin, [0170], “Examples of algorithm methods include, but are not limited to, eigenvector, basis function, least squares, principle component analysis, ratios, differences, matched filter, neural networks, cross-correlation, multivariate analysis, and numerous classification methods”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Deliwala and Ling with the analysis methods of McQuilkin. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of the analysis methods as disclosed by McQuilkin and how to use them to modify the combination of Deliwala and Ling. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of known analysis methods in similar systems.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Deliwala and Ling discloses Claim 11, and further discloses:
… wherein the eigenvector comprises n number of eigenvectors (Examiner notes that one or more eigenvectors is inherent from Claim 11), and …
However, McQuilkin, in a similar field of endeavor (SPECTRAL IMAGING SYSTEM FOR REMOTE AND NONINVASIVE DETECTION OF TARGET SUBSTANCES USING SPECTRAL FILTER ARRAYS AND IMAGE CAPTURE ARRAYS), discloses:
… the processor converts a ratio of the n number of eigenvectors into a plurality of angular values and analyzes a relationship between the plurality of angular values to determine whether the smoke is caused by a fire or a non-fire (McQuilkin, [0170], “Examples of algorithm methods include, but are not limited to, eigenvector, basis function, least squares, principle component analysis, ratios, differences, matched filter, neural networks, cross-correlation, multivariate analysis, and numerous classification methods”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Deliwala and Ling with the analysis methods of McQuilkin. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of the analysis methods as disclosed by McQuilkin and how to use them to modify the combination of Deliwala and Ling. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of known analysis methods in similar systems.
Conclusion
Applicant's 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 CHAD A REVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0079. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kara Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/CHAD ANDREW REVERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877