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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 17 recite the limitation “wherein a quantity of the plurality of pump fibers is associated with an asymmetric packing geometry”.
For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted to mean that a demonstrated example of asymmetry is present in one, a portion, or all of the pump fibers. As disclosed by the applicant in Fig. 3B, the packing geometry of the plurality of pump fibers may have both axes at the center of the fibers where it is symmetric (axes drawn from the center fiber of the fibers to a vertex of the hexagonal shape formed by the fibers) and also axes intersecting the center fiber of the fibers that are asymmetric (axes drawn from the center fiber of the fibers to a point bisecting an edge of the hexagonal shape formed by the fibers).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 recite the limitation “substantially circular cross-section”. The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders these claims indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be read as “circular-cross section”. By their dependency, claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are also rejected.
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, 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Toyohara (JP 2001/068766 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Toyohara teaches a combiner (see paragraph [0008] of Examiner provided translation), comprising: a plurality of pump fibers (Fig. 5, see “3 1~6”); see paragraph [0028] of Examiner provided translation), wherein the plurality of pump fibers each comprise: a core (Fig. 5, see inner circles of “3 1~6”); and a cladding that surrounds the core (Fig. 5, see outer circles of “3 1~6” surrounding inner circles of “3 1~6”); and one or more filler fibers (Fig. 5, “2”) that are made from a cladding material (Fig. 5, see outer circle of “2” made of same material as outer circles of “3 1~6””), wherein the plurality of pump fibers and the one or more filler fibers each have a substantially circular cross-section (Fig. 5), wherein a quantity of the plurality of pump fibers is associated with an asymmetric packing geometry (Annotated Fig. 5-I), and wherein the plurality of pump fibers and the one or more filler fibers have a symmetric packing geometry at an input end of the combiner (Annotated Fig. 5-II) and a circular cross-section at an output end of the combiner (see paragraph [0027] of Examiner provided translation”, “cylindrical fiber ferrule 1” is cylindrical and therefore has a circular cross section along its entire length including at its output end).
PNG
media_image1.png
805
1314
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5-I
PNG
media_image2.png
805
1024
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5-II
Regarding Claim 2, Toyohara teaches the device of Claim 1. Toyohara further teaches: an outer diameter of the one or more filler fibers equals an outer diameter of the plurality of pump fibers (see paragraph [0041] of Examiner provided translation”, outer diameter including cladding of both “2” and “3-1” to “3-6” respectively is 40 µm).
Regarding Claim 5, Toyohara teaches the device of Claim 1. Toyohara further teaches: the cladding of each of the plurality of pump fibers is made from the cladding material used for the one or more filler fibers (Fig. 5, see outer circle of “3 1~6” is the same as the outer circle of “2”).
Regarding Claim 6, Toyohara teaches the device of Claim 1. Toyohara further teaches: the one or more filler fibers have one or more of a geometry or a size that differs from the plurality of pump fibers (Annotated Fig. 5-II, see explanation below). The one or more filler fibers as disclosed by Toyohara form a circle, and plurality of pump fibers as disclosed by Toyohara form a hexagonal shape. It can be necessarily understood to someone having ordinary skill in the art that: a circle and a hexagon have a differing geometry, in the sense that a circle has infinitely many axes of symmetry at its center, whereas a hexagonal shape has only 6 axes of symmetry at its center. Therefore, as disclosed by Toyohara, the one or more filler fibers have one or more of a geometry or a size that differs from the plurality of pump fibers.
Regarding Claim 7, Toyohara teaches the device of Claim 1. Toyohara further teaches: the symmetric packing geometry comprises a single center port (Fig. 5, “2”) and one or more hexagonal rings concentrically surrounding the single center port (Fig. 5, see one concentric hexagonal ring around “2”).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Toyohara, in view of Skovgaard et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2008/0050069 A1), hereinafter Skovgaard.
Regarding Claim 3, Toyohara teaches the device of Claim 1. Toyohara does not explicitly teach: the core of each of the plurality of pump fibers is made from a first material having a first refractive index parameter, and wherein the one or more filler fibers are made from a second material having a second refractive index parameter that is less than the first refractive index parameter.
However, Toyohara discloses: the cladding of each of the plurality of pump fibers is made from the cladding material used for the one or more filler fibers (Fig. 5, see outer circle of “3 1~6” is the same as the outer circle of “2”).
Skovgaard teaches: the core of each of the plurality of pump fibers has a refractive index parameter higher than the cladding of each of the plurality of pump fibers (paragraph [0030]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: the core of each of the plurality of pump fibers has a refractive index parameter higher than the cladding of each of the plurality of pump fibers, in order to guide the pump light (paragraph [0030]).
It can be necessarily understood to someone having ordinary skill in the art that:
the core of each of the plurality of pump fibers is made from a first material having a first refractive index parameter, wherein the one or more filler fibers are made from a second material having a second refractive index parameter that is less than the first refractive index parameter in the device of Toyohara and Skovgaard,
in the sense that the cladding of each of the plurality of pump fibers is made from a second material having a second refractive index parameter less than the first refractive index parameter of the cores of each of the plurality of pump fibers as taught by Skovgaard, and the refractive index parameter for the cladding of each of the plurality of pump fibers and the refractive index parameter for the cladding of the filler fibers are the same as they are made of the same material as disclosed by Toyohara.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyohara, in view of Fini et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,903,211), hereinafter Fini, in view of Dong et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2005/0105854), hereinafter Dong.
Regarding Claim 4, Toyohara teaches the device of Claim 1. Toyohara does not teach: one or more filler fibers are disposed along an outer circumference of the combiner.
Fini teaches: a plurality of filler fibers (Fig. 7A, see “72a”-“72f”) disposed along a circumference (Fig. 7A, “76”) of the combiner (Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: add filler fibers disposed along a circumference of the combiner, for the benefit of carrying more signals in the fiber bundle. Toyohara and Fini do not teach: that the filler fibers are disposed along an outer circumference of the combiner.
Dong teaches: a plurality of non-pump fibers (Fig. 3, “15”) are disposed along an outer circumference (Fig. 3, see “14 on outer circumference of fibers) of the combiner. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention: for the filler fibers to be disposed along an outer circumference of the combiner in the device of Toyohara and Fini, in order to maintain the hexagonal arrangement of the fibers (paragraph [0010]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyohara, in view of Sugiyama (U.S. Patent Application No. 2020/0067261 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Toyohara teaches the device of Claim 1. Toyohara does not teach: the plurality of pump fibers and the one or more filler fibers form a fiber bundle without a surrounding capillary.
Sugiyama teaches: a fiber bundle without a surrounding capillary (Fig. 3C, paragraph [0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: the plurality of pump fibers and the one or more filler fibers form a fiber bundle without a surrounding capillary in the device of Toyohara, for the benefit of minimizing the diameter of the fiber bundle.
Claims 9-10, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyohara in view of Tanigawa et al. (JP 2007/165822 A), hereinafter Tanigawa.
Regarding Claim 9, Toyohara teaches a combiner (see paragraph [0008] of Examiner provided translation), comprising: a plurality of pump fibers (Fig. 5, see “3 1~6”); see paragraph [0028] of Examiner provided translation), wherein the plurality of pump fibers each comprise: a core (Fig. 5, see inner circles of “3 1~6”); and a cladding that surrounds the core (Fig. 5, see outer circles of “3 1~6” surrounding inner circles of “3 1~6”); and one or more filler fibers (Fig. 5, “2”) that are made from a cladding material (Fig. 5, see outer circle of “2” made of same material as outer circles of “3 1~6””), wherein the plurality of pump fibers and the one or more filler fibers each have a substantially circular cross-section (Fig. 5), wherein a quantity of the plurality of pump fibers is associated with an asymmetric packing geometry (Annotated Fig. 5-I), and wherein the plurality of pump fibers and the one or more filler fibers have a symmetric packing geometry at an input end of the combiner (Annotated Fig. 5-II) and a circular cross-section at an output end of the combiner (see paragraph [0027] of Examiner provided translation”, “cylindrical fiber ferrule 1” is cylindrical and therefore has a circular cross section along its entire length including at its output end). Toyohara does not teach: an optical system, comprising: a plurality of pump sources; an output fiber; and a combiner comprising an input end coupled to the plurality of pump sources and an output end coupled to the output fiber; that the plurality of pump fibers are coupled to the plurality of pump sources.
Tanigawa teaches an optical system (Title; Abstract; Fig. 1A), comprising: a plurality of pump sources (see paragraph [0031] of Examiner provided translation); an output fiber (Fig. 1A, “25”; and a combiner (see paragraph [0016] of Examiner provided translation; Fig. 1A, “24”, “27”) comprising an input end coupled to the plurality of pump sources (Fig. 1A, “29”) and an output end coupled to the output fiber (Fig. 1A, “30”); that the plurality of pump fibers are coupled to the plurality of pump sources (see paragraph [0031] of Examiner provided translation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention: to utilize the combiner as taught by Toyohara in the optical device of Tanigawa, for the benefit of combining light sources; for the device of Toyohara to comprise a plurality of pump sources, for the benefit of supplying pump light to the combiner; for the device of Toyohara to comprise an output end, for the benefit of transmitting the combined pump light output by the combiner.
Regarding Claim 10, Toyohara and Tanigawa teach the device of Claim 9. Toyohara further teaches: an outer diameter of the one or more filler fibers equals an outer diameter of the plurality of pump fibers (see paragraph [0041] of Examiner provided translation”, outer diameter including cladding of both “2” and “3-1” to “3-6” respectively is 40 µm).
Regarding Claim 13, Toyohara and Tanigawa teach the device of Claim 9. Toyohara further teaches: the cladding of each of the plurality of pump fibers is made from the cladding material used for the one or more filler fibers (Fig. 5, see outer circle of “3 1~6” is the same as the outer circle of “2”).
Regarding Claim 14, Toyohara and Tanigawa teach the device of Claim 9. Toyohara further teaches: the one or more filler fibers have one or more of a geometry or a size that differs from the plurality of pump fibers (Annotated Fig. 5-II, see explanation below). The one or more filler fibers as disclosed by Toyohara form a circle, and plurality of pump fibers as disclosed by Toyohara form a hexagonal shape. It can be necessarily understood to someone having ordinary skill in the art that: a circle and a hexagon have a differing geometry, in the sense that a circle has infinitely many axes of symmetry at its center, whereas a hexagonal shape has only 6 axes of symmetry at its center. Therefore, as disclosed by Toyohara, the one or more filler fibers have one or more of a geometry or a size that differs from the plurality of pump fibers.
Regarding Claim 15, Toyohara and Tanigawa teach the device of Claim 9. Toyohara further teaches: the symmetric packing geometry comprises a single center port (Fig. 5, “2”) and one or more hexagonal rings concentrically surrounding the single center port (Fig. 5, see one concentric hexagonal ring around “2”).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyohara, in view of Tanigawa, in view of Skovgaard.
Regarding Claim 11, Toyohara and Tanigawa teach the device of Claim 9 . Toyohara and Tanigawa do not explicitly teach: the core of each of the plurality of pump fibers is made from a first material having a first refractive index parameter, and wherein the one or more filler fibers are made from a second material having a second refractive index parameter that is less than the first refractive index parameter.
However, Toyohara discloses: the cladding of each of the plurality of pump fibers is made from the cladding material used for the one or more filler fibers (Fig. 5, see outer circle of “3 1~6” is the same as the outer circle of “2”).
Skovgaard teaches: the core of each of the plurality of pump fibers has a refractive index parameter higher than the cladding of each of the plurality of pump fibers (paragraph [0030]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: the core of each of the plurality of pump fibers has a refractive index parameter higher than the cladding of each of the plurality of pump fibers, in order to guide the pump light (paragraph [0030]).
It can be necessarily understood to someone having ordinary skill in the art that:
the core of each of the plurality of pump fibers is made from a first material having a first refractive index parameter, wherein the one or more filler fibers are made from a second material having a second refractive index parameter that is less than the first refractive index parameter in the device of Toyohara, Tanigawa, and Skovgaard,
in the sense that the cladding of each of the plurality of pump fibers is made from a second material having a second refractive index parameter less than the first refractive index parameter of the cores of each of the plurality of pump fibers as taught by Skovgaard, and the refractive index parameter for the cladding of each of the plurality of pump fibers and the refractive index parameter for the cladding of the filler fibers are the same as they are made of the same material as disclosed by Toyohara.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyohara, in view of Tanigawa, in view of Fini, in view of Dong.
Regarding Claim 12, Toyohara and Tanigawa teach the device of Claim 9. Toyohara and Tanigawa do not teach: the one or more filler fibers are disposed along an outer circumference of the combiner.
Fini teaches: a plurality of filler fibers (Fig. 7A, see “72a”-“72f”) disposed along a circumference (Fig. 7A, “76”) of the combiner (Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: add filler fibers disposed along a circumference of the combiner, for the benefit of carrying more signals in the fiber bundle. Toyohara, Tanigawa and Fini do not teach: that the filler fibers are disposed along an outer circumference of the combiner.
Dong teaches: a plurality of non-pump fibers (Fig. 3, “15”) are disposed along an outer circumference (Fig. 3, see “14 on outer circumference of fibers) of the combiner. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention: for the filler fibers to be disposed along an outer circumference of the combiner in the device of Tanigawa, in order to maintain the hexagonal arrangement of the fibers (paragraph [0010]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyohara, in view of Tanigawa, in view of Sugiyama.
Regarding Claim 16, Toyohara and Tanigawa teach the device of Claim 9. Toyohara and Tanigawa do not teach: the plurality of pump fibers and the one or more filler fibers form a fiber bundle without a surrounding capillary.
Sugiyama teaches: a fiber bundle without a surrounding capillary (Fig. 3C, paragraph [0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: the plurality of pump fibers and the one or more filler fibers form a fiber bundle without a surrounding capillary in the device of Toyohara and Tanigawa, for the benefit of minimizing the diameter of the fiber bundle.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyohara, in view of Skovgaard, in view of Fini, in view of Dong.
Regarding Claim 17, Toyohara teaches a combiner (see paragraph [0008] of Examiner provided translation), comprising: a plurality of pump fibers (Fig. 5, see “3 1~6”); see paragraph [0028] of Examiner provided translation), wherein the plurality of pump fibers each comprise: a core (Fig. 5, see inner circles of “3 1~6”); and a cladding that surrounds the core (Fig. 5, see outer circles of “3 1~6” surrounding inner circles of “3 1~6”); and one or more filler fibers (Fig. 5, “2”) that are made from a cladding material (Fig. 5, see outer circle of “2” made of same material as outer circles of “3 1~6””), wherein the plurality of pump fibers and the one or more filler fibers each have a substantially circular cross-section (Fig. 5), wherein a quantity of the plurality of pump fibers is associated with an asymmetric packing geometry (Annotated Fig. 5-I), and wherein the plurality of pump fibers and the one or more filler fibers have a symmetric packing geometry at an input end of the combiner (Annotated Fig. 5-II) and a circular cross-section at an output end of the combiner (see paragraph [0027] of Examiner provided translation”, “cylindrical fiber ferrule 1” is cylindrical and therefore has a circular cross section along its entire length including at its output end). Toyohara does not teach: the core of each of the plurality of pump fibers is made from a first material having a first refractive index parameter, and wherein the one or more filler fibers are made from a second material having a second refractive index parameter that is less than the first refractive index parameter; that the one or more filler fibers are disposed along an outer circumference of the combiner.
However, Toyohara discloses: the cladding of each of the plurality of pump fibers is made from the cladding material used for the one or more filler fibers (Fig. 5, see outer circle of “3 1~6” is the same as the outer circle of “2”).
Skovgaard teaches: the core of each of the plurality of pump fibers has a refractive index parameter higher than the cladding of each of the plurality of pump fibers (paragraph [0030]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: the core of each of the plurality of pump fibers has a refractive index parameter higher than the cladding of each of the plurality of pump fibers, in order to guide the pump light (paragraph [0030]).
It can be necessarily understood to someone having ordinary skill in the art that:
the core of each of the plurality of pump fibers is made from a first material having a first refractive index parameter, wherein the one or more filler fibers are made from a second material having a second refractive index parameter that is less than the first refractive index parameter in the device of Toyohara and Skovgaard,
in the sense that the cladding of each of the plurality of pump fibers is made from a second material having a second refractive index parameter less than the first refractive index parameter of the cores of each of the plurality of pump fibers as taught by Skovgaard, and the refractive index parameter for the cladding of each of the plurality of pump fibers and the refractive index parameter for the cladding of the filler fibers are the same as they are made of the same material as disclosed by Toyohara. Toyohara and Skovgaard do not teach: that one or more filler fibers are disposed along an outer circumference of the combiner.
Fini teaches: a plurality of filler fibers (Fig. 7A, see “72a”-“72f”) disposed along a circumference (Fig. 7A, “76”) of the combiner (Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: add filler fibers disposed along a circumference of the combiner, for the benefit of carrying more signals in the fiber bundle. Toyohara, Skovgaard, and Fini do not teach: that the filler fibers are disposed along an outer circumference of the combiner.
Dong teaches: a plurality of non-pump fibers (Fig. 3, “15”) are disposed along an outer circumference (Fig. 3, see “14 on outer circumference of fibers) of the combiner. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention: for the filler fibers to be disposed along an outer circumference of the combiner in the device of Tanigawa, in order to maintain the hexagonal arrangement of the fibers (paragraph [0010]).
Regarding Claim 18, Toyohara, Skovgaard, Fini, and Dong teach the device of Claim 17. Toyohara further teaches: the cladding of each of the plurality of pump fibers is made from the cladding material used for the one or more filler fibers (Fig. 5, see outer circle of “3 1~6” is the same as the outer circle of “2”).
Regarding Claim 19, Toyohara, Skovgaard, Fini, and Dong teach the device of Claim 17. Toyohara further teaches: the symmetric packing geometry comprises a single center port (Fig. 5, “2”) and one or more hexagonal rings concentrically surrounding the single center port (Fig. 5, see one concentric hexagonal ring around “2”).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyohara, in view of Skovgaard, in view of Fini, in view of Dong, in view of Sugiyama.
Regarding Claim 20, Toyohara, Skovgaard, Fini, and Dong teach the device of Claim 17. Toyohara, Skovgaard, Fini, and Dong do not teach: the plurality of pump fibers and the one or more filler fibers form a fiber bundle without a surrounding capillary.
Sugiyama teaches: a fiber bundle without a surrounding capillary (Fig. 3C, paragraph [0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: the plurality of pump fibers and the one or more filler fibers form a fiber bundle without a surrounding capillary in the device of Toyohara, Skovgaard, Fini, and Dong, for the benefit of minimizing the diameter of the fiber bundle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ward (U.S. Patent No. 8,818,151)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASMIN KAUR MUNDI whose telephone number is (571)272-9755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. ET.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at (571) 272-1835. 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.
/J.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights