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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed 7/29/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the arguments on pages 9-10 directed towards the previous 112 rejections,
Applicant does not present any specific arguments directed towards the remaining claims, and the Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees and directs applicant’s attention to the rejections found below.
With regard to the arguments on pages 10-12 directed towards Shao (US 2019/0360839 A1),
Applicant argues that Shao does not disclose a drive coil that includes two layered coil portions disclosed on opposing outer surfaces of the multilayer substrate and the two-phase detection coils are disposed between the layered coil portions. Applicant then argues that there would be no reason to modify Shao’s configuration because such a modification would change the principle operation of Shao. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner acknowledges that Shao does not disclose the argued claim features, but that such a modification is obvious. Shao makes clear that the coils can be placed in various layers, and therefore is not limited to any particular configuration. In paragraph [0050], Shao explains “In some embodiments, the first receiving coil 24 and the second receiving coil 26 may be positioned in adjacent or adjoining layers. In other embodiments, the first receiving coil 24 and the second receiving coil 26 may be positioned in layers that are spaced apart or separated by another layer that may be unoccupied or may contain other coils (i.e. a portion of the transmitter coil and the like).” Here, Shao is expressly disclosing that the invention is not limited to one configuration of the coils being any particular layer, and instead expressly recognizes that the coils of the drive and detection coils may be in different configurations of different layers.
To that extent, given this recognition and given that there are only four total layers, there are a reasonably finite number of possible configurations available to implement which layer the drive or detection coils are located. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found the above claim features as obvious, because a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. Furthermore, a person would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to ensure an even, uniform drive magnetic field, and symmetric magnetic field about the area of both drive coils to ensure they detect the same magnetic field, and thus minimize errors. Furthermore, locating the detection coils between the drive coils would also minimize the effect of external noise, as the magnetic field from the drive coils would reasonably act as a shield and defect other magnetic fields near the detection coils in a direction away from the coils.
While applicant argues that such a modification would change the principle operation of the Shao, the Examiner respectfully notes that applicant does not offer any evidence or explanation as to why this would occur. Shao expressly recognizes that the coils can be in different layer configurations, thereby reasonably demonstrating that changing the manner in which the coils are layered does not change the principle operation of the invention, and in fact would reasonably lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that Shao intended to encompass different configurations of where the detection and drive coils were located relative to each other. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claim 8,
The phrase “the plurality of layers in the multilayer substrate includes a first outermost layer and a second outermost layer, and the two-phase detection coils are disposed closer to the second outermost layer than to the first outermost layer” on lines 1-4 introduces new matter.
In the combination, this claim phrase now introduces new matter. Claim 1 is now expressly limited to the embodiment of Figure 1, as this is the only figure that discloses two drive coil portions on opposing outer surfaces and connected through an electrode. However, this embodiment does not disclose detection coils closer to a second layer than a first layer. Instead, they are symmetrically positioned and thus cannot reasonably include such a feature. This phrase therefore introduces new matter, in the combination.
As to Claim 9,
The phrase “the at least a portion of the drive coil and the two-phase detection coils are disposed between the first outermost layer and the second outermost layer” on lines 1-3 introduces new matter.
Claim 1 is now expressly limited to the embodiment of Figure 1, and Figure 1 does not reasonably include any drive coil portion disposed between the first and second outermost layer as claimed. None of Figures 7, 8A, or 8B include the features of Claim 1, because they do not disclose drive coil portions on outer layer surfaces but also connected through an electrode. This phrase therefore introduces new matter, in the combination.
As to Claim 13,
The phrase “the second main surface of the first layer and the first main surface of the second layer are directly coupled to each other” on lines 1-2 introduces new matter.
Claim 1 expressly requires that the drive coils be on outer surfaces of the substrate with the detection coils located in-between the drive coils. This requires, in light of the disclosure, other layers to be in-between the layers that the drive coils are located on, which prevents any surface from the layers with the drive coils from directly coupling to each other. For example, layer 33 cannot directly couple with layer 37. As such, this phrase introduces new matter.
As to Claim 9,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, and 13 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.
As to Claim 5,
The phrase “the plurality of coil portions is on different main surfaces, respectively, of the main surfaces of the plurality of layers, and the plurality of coil portions overlap each other in a plan view” on lines 1-3 is indefinite. Claim 1 now requires the drive coil portions to be on opposing outer surfaces, which must be main surfaces of the layers. However, Claim 5 is distinctly reciting that the coil portions are on different main surfaces from those already recited in Claim 1. The difference and relationship between the outer surfaces of Claim 1 and the main surfaces of Claim 5 are therefore unclear, because as best understood, the outer surfaces would be included in the different main surfaces of Claim 5 and thus not distinct from these main surfaces, but they are being distinctly recited. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the main surfaces include the outer surfaces.
As to Claims 8 and 9,
The phrases “the plurality of layers in the multilayer substrate includes a first outermost layer and a second outermost layer, and the two-phase detection coils are disposed closer to the second outermost layer than to the first outermost layer” on lines 1-4 of Claim 8 and “the at least a portion of the drive coil and the two-phase detection coils are disposed between the first outermost layer and the second outermost layer” on lines 1-3 of Claim 9 are indefinite.
Claim 1 is now expressly limited to the embodiment of Figure 1, because no other figure reasonably discloses the combination of two drive coil portions that are located on outer surfaces of two layers of the substrate and are also connected by way of a through electrode. However, the above claim recitations raise an issue of how the term “on” should be interpreted in light of the disclosure. In one interpretation, the term “on” would reasonably require a more limited meaning where claiming that a drive coil portion being “on” a specific layer surface would require it to be directly on that surface. However, in order for any of the above claim features to be proper, the term “on” would have to have a broader meaning, such that the term allows for non-direct contact. For example, stacking ten books “on” a table would reasonably require those ten books to be “on” the table, even if the top book is nowhere near the top of the table. For the purpose of compact prosecution, and in light of the above claim combination, the Examiner is interpreting the claims with the broader interpretation of the term “on,” thus allowing for any element in the substrate to be said to be “on” any element, because all element are stacked together. This interpretation is being applied to all claims.
As to Claim 12,
The phrase “the drive coil is disposed on the first main surface of the first layer and at least one of the two-phase detection coils is disposed on the second main surface of the first layer and the first main surface of the second layer” on lines 4-6 is indefinite. Claim 1 now requires the drive coil portions to be on opposing outer surfaces, which must be main surfaces of the layers. However, Claim 12 is distinctly reciting that the coil portions are on different main surfaces from those already recited in Claim 1. The difference and relationship between the outer surfaces of Claim 1 and the main surfaces of Claim 12 are therefore unclear, because as best understood, the outer surfaces would be the same as the main surfaces of Claim 12 and thus not distinct from these main surfaces, but they are being distinctly recited. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the main surfaces and the outer surfaces are the same surfaces.
As to Claims 6, 9, and 13,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao (US 2019/0360839 A1).
As to Claim 1,
Shao discloses An angle sensor comprising: a multilayer substrate (30, except layer 30d for Claim 20) having a plurality of layers that each have main surfaces that face each other (Figures 1H,3A-3E), (Paragraph [0056]); a drive coil (116/16) that includes two layered coil portions disposed on opposing surfaces of the multilayer substrate and a through electrode that electrically connects the two layered coil portions (Figures 1H,3A-3E), (Paragraph [0079],[0055] / note the coils have traces that connect the coils, and anyone trace can be considered an electrode that extends through one of the layers), and two-phase detection coils (124),(126) disposed in the multilayer substrate (Figures 1H, 3D, 3E), (Paragraphs [0043],[0049],[0075]-[0077] / note the coils 124 and 126 are offset by 90 degrees in the same way coils 24 and 26 are offset, and thus one coil outputs a sine while the other outputs a cosine phase difference, and thus two-phases), wherein the two-phase detection coils are disposed on different main surfaces, respectively, of the main surfaces of the plurality of layers (Figure 1H).
Shao does not disclose a drive coil that includes two layered coil portions disposed on opposing outer surfaces of the multilayer substrate and a through electrode that electrically connects the two layered coil portions, wherein the two-phase detection coils are disposed between the two layered coil portions in a thickness direction of the multilayer substrate.
However, Shao expressly discloses that the drive coil and its coil portions, as well as the two-phase detection coils, can be positioned on different layers such that the coil portions either adjoin each other or are separated from each other, thereby reasonably recognizing different configurations for the layers and what coils are found in those layers (see Paragraph [0050]).
Before the effective filing date, there was a recognized problem or need in the art to position the drive and detection coils in a manner that reduced the cost of the device and eliminated the need for a coupler element (Paragraph [0004]). There were only a finite number of ways that the coils could be implemented where four layers are used and one coil is placed per layer, as disclosed in Figure 1H and paragraph [0050]. To that point, there were only four possible configurations available, 1) one as shown on Figure 1H, 2) a second where coil portions 16a,b were moved to the top two layers and coil portions 24,26 were in the bottom two layers, 3) a third where the outer layers 30a,d contained just the drive coils which sandwiched the detection coils in layers 30b,c, and 4) a fourth where the outer layers 30a,d contained just the detection coils which sandwiched the drive coils in layers 30b,c.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in changing the coil configuration to option 3) above because Shao expressly disclose that more than one coil configuration can be used, including using options 1) and 4) above. Options 3) and 4) are essentially identical, and only differ in that the detection coils are placed into the outer layers instead of the drive coils. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably recognized that either variation would have worked and thus had a reasonable expectation of success.
To that point, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shao to try one of the four coil configurations noted above, including option 4), to thereby include a drive coil that includes two layered coil portions disposed on opposing outer surfaces of the multilayer substrate and a through electrode that electrically connects the two layered coil portions, wherein the two-phase detection coils are disposed between the two layered coil portions in a thickness direction of the multilayer substrate given the above disclosure and teaching of Shao because a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, and in order to advantageously help ensure an even, uniform drive magnetic field, and symmetric magnetic field about the area of both drive coils to ensure they detect the same magnetic field, and thus minimize errors, and because locating the detection coils between the drive coils would also minimize the effect of external noise, as the magnetic field from the drive coils would reasonably act as a shield and defect other magnetic fields near the detection coils in a direction away from the coils.
As to Claim 2,
Shao discloses the drive coil and the two-phase detection coils overlap each other in a plan view (Figure 3B), (Paragraphs [0066],[0070] / note the coils 124,126 overlap each other and the drive coil 116/16).
As to Claim 3,
Shao discloses the two-phase detection coils are disposed on different main surfaces, respectively, of the main surfaces of the plurality of layers (Figure 1H), and the two-phase detection coils overlap each other in a plan view (Figures 1H,3B).
As to Claim 4,
Shao discloses the drive coil includes a plurality of coil portions (16a,16b / 116a,116b) that includes the two layered coil portions (Paragraphs [0050],[0055]), (Figures 1H,3B).
As to Claim 5,
Shao discloses the plurality of coil portions is on different main surfaces, respectively, of the main surfaces of the plurality of layers, and the plurality of coil portions overlap each other in a plan view (Figure 3B), (Paragraphs [0066],[0070] / note the coils 116/16 overlap each other).
As to Claim 6,
Shao discloses the through electrode extends through at least one layer of the plurality of layers so as to connect the coil portions to each other (Figures 1H, 3A,3B),(Paragraph [0055] / note the coils have traces that connect the coils, and anyone trace can be considered an electrode that extends through one of the layers).
As to Claim 8,
Shao discloses the plurality of layers in the multilayer substrate includes a first outermost layer and a second outermost layer, and the two-phase detection coils are disposed closer to the second outermost layer than to the first outermost layer (Paragraph [0056] / note the device can have more than one layer, which reasonably includes a fifth layer between one of the detection coil portions and one of the drive coil portions, thereby causing one detection coil to be closer to one outermost layer than another).
As to Claim 9,
Shao discloses the at least a portion of the drive coil and the two-phase detection coils are disposed between the first outermost layer and the second outermost layer (Figure 1H / note all coils are located within the layers, and the outermost layers have material that extends beyond the coils in the up/down direction, making the coils disposed between these layers).
As to Claim 11,
Shao discloses a first external connection electrode on the multilayer substrate and electrically connected to a first detection coil of the two-phase detection coils; a second external connection electrode on the multilayer substrate and electrically connected to a second detection coil of the two-phase detection coils; and a third external connection electrode on the multilayer substrate and electrically connected to the drive coil (Figures 3A-3E), (Paragraphs [0067],[0068] / note each coil has a connection junction which is an external connection electrode on the substrate and used to connect the coils to, for example, the signal processor 702 in paragraph [0054] and [0061).
As to Claim 12,
Shao discloses the plurality of layers includes a first layer (30b) having first and second opposing main surfaces and a second layer (30c) having first and second opposing main surfaces (Figure 1H), and wherein the drive coil is disposed on the first main surface of the first layer and at least one of the two-phase detection coils is disposed on the second main surface of the first layer and the first main surface of the second layer (Figure 1H).
As to Claim 13,
Shao discloses the second main surface of the first layer and the first main surface of the second layer are directly coupled to each other (Figure 1H / note the second main surface can be the bottom of layer 30b and the first main surface is the top of 30c).
As to Claim 14,
Shao discloses An angle sensor comprising: a multilayer substrate (30) having at least a first layer (for example 30b) with opposing first and second main surfaces and a second layer (for example 30c) with opposing first and second main surfaces (Figures 1H,3A-3E), (Paragraph [0056]), with the first main surface of the second layer being directly coupled to the second main surface of the first layer (Figure 1H / note the first main surface can be the bottom of layer 30b and the second main surface is the top of 30c); a drive coil (116/16) that includes two layered coil portions, with at least one of the two layered coil portions being disposed on the first main surface of the first layer (Figure 1H),(Paragraph [0050] / note the coils can be arranged with the two detection coils 24,26 located between drive coil portions 16a,16b, but also note that every coil portion is “on” every layer and their respective surface); and two-phase detection coils disposed in the multilayer substrate and on the first main surface of the second layer and the second main surface of the first layer (Figure 1H), (Paragraphs [0050], [0043],[0049],[0075]-[0077]).
Shao does not disclose the combination of a drive coil that includes two layered coil portions, with at least one of the two layered coil portions being disposed on the first main surface of the first layer the two-phase detection coils are disposed between the two layered coil portions of the drive coil in a thickness direction of the multilayer substrate.
However, Shao expressly discloses that the drive coil and its coil portions, as well as the two-phase detection coils, can be positioned on different layers such that the coil portions either adjoin each other or are separated from each other, thereby reasonably recognizing different configurations for the layers and what coils are found in those layers (see Paragraph [0050]).
Before the effective filing date, there was a recognized problem or need in the art to position the drive and detection coils in a manner that reduced the cost of the device and eliminated the need for a coupler element (Paragraph [0004]). There were only a finite number of ways that the coils could be implemented where four layers are used and one coil is placed per layer, as disclosed in Figure 1H and paragraph [0050]. To that point, there were only four possible configurations available, 1) one as shown on Figure 1H, 2) a second where coil portions 16a,b were moved to the top two layers and coil portions 24,26 were in the bottom two layers, 3) a third where the outer layers 30a,d contained just the drive coils which sandwiched the detection coils in layers 30b,c, and 4) a fourth where the outer layers 30a,d contained just the detection coils which sandwiched the drive coils in layers 30b,c.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in changing the coil configuration to option 3) above because Shao expressly disclose that more than one coil configuration can be used, including using options 1) and 4) above. Options 3) and 4) are essentially identical, and only differ in that the detection coils are placed into the outer layers instead of the drive coils. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably recognized that either variation would have worked and thus had a reasonable expectation of success.
To that point, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shao to try one of the four coil configurations noted above, including option 4), to thereby include the combination of a drive coil that includes two layered coil portions, with at least one of the two layered coil portions being disposed on the first main surface of the first layer the two-phase detection coils are disposed between the two layered coil portions of the drive coil in a thickness direction of the multilayer substrate given the above disclosure and teaching of Shao because a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, and in order to advantageously help ensure an even, uniform drive magnetic field, and symmetric magnetic field about the area of both drive coils to ensure they detect the same magnetic field, and thus minimize errors, and because locating the detection coils between the drive coils would also minimize the effect of external noise, as the magnetic field from the drive coils would reasonably act as a shield and defect other magnetic fields near the detection coils in a direction away from the coils.
As to Claim 15,
Shao discloses the drive coil and the two-phase detection coils overlap each other in a plan view (Figure 3B), (Paragraphs [0066],[0070] / note the coils 124,126 overlap each other and the drive coil 116/16).
As to Claim 16,
Shao discloses the drive coil includes a plurality of coil portions (16a,16b / 116a,116b) that includes the two layered coil portions and a through electrode (Paragraph [0055] / note the coils have traces that connect the coils, and anyone trace can be considered an electrode that extends through one of the layers), the plurality of coil portions is on different main surfaces, respectively, of the first and second layers (Figures 1H,3B), and the plurality of coil portions overlap each other in a plan view (Figures 1H,3B), and the through electrode extends through at least one layer of the multilayer substrate so as to connect the coil portions to each other (Figures 1H, 3A,3B),(Paragraph [0055] / note the coils have traces that connect the coils, and anyone trace can be considered an electrode that extends through one of the layers).
As to Claim 17,
Shao discloses the multilayer substrate includes a first outermost layer and a second outermost layer, and the two-phase detection coils are disposed closer to the second outermost layer than to the first outermost layer (Paragraph [0056] / note the device can have more than one layer, which reasonably includes a fifth layer between one of the detection coil portions and one of the drive coil portions, thereby causing one detection coil to be closer to one outermost layer than another).
As to Claim 18,
Shao discloses at least a portion of the drive coil and the two-phase detection coils are disposed between the first outermost layer and the second outermost layer (Figure 1H / note all coils are located within the layers, and the outermost layers have material that extends beyond the coils in the up/down direction, making the coils disposed between these layers).
As to Claim 19,
Shao discloses a first external connection electrode on the multilayer substrate and electrically connected to a first detection coil of the two-phase detection coils; a second external connection electrode on the multilayer substrate and electrically connected to a second detection coil of the two-phase detection coils; and a third external connection electrode on the multilayer substrate and electrically connected to the drive coil (Figures 3A-3E), (Paragraphs [0067],[0068] / note each coil has a connection junction which is an external connection electrode on the substrate and used to connect the coils to, for example, the signal processor 702 in paragraph [0054] and [0061).
As to Claim 20,
Shao discloses An angle sensor module comprising: a mounting substrate (30d), the angle sensor according to claim 1 (see the above rejection of Claim 1), the angle sensor disposed on the mounting substrate (Figures 1H,7), and an angle detection circuit (702) disposed on the mounting substrate and electrically connected to the angle sensor (Paragraph [0084]), (Figure 7).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao (US 2019/0360839 A1) in view of WissPeintner et al. (US 2020/0309574 A1).
As to Claim 10,
Shao does not disclose each of the plurality of layers comprises a glass ceramic.
WissPeintner discloses each of the plurality of layers comprises a glass ceramic (Paragraph [0038] / note LTCC is a glass ceramic), (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shao to include each of the plurality of layers a glass ceramic as taught by WissPeintner in order to advantageously utilize a substrate material that can better withstand high temperatures and are therefore less prone to becoming damaged.
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 DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858