DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 9/29/2023.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 3 and figures 4A – 4C filed on 9/29/2023 are of insufficient quality for reproduction and examination. Specifically, the drawings appear blurred and lack adequate line clarity. As a result, reference characters and structural details cannot be clearly and consistently discerned. The Examiner notes that this objection also applies to the drawings in the replacement sheet filed on 12/1/2023, as the structures and reference characters seen in figures 4A – 4C also appear blurred and lack adequate line clarity. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are further objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first electrical terminals” of claim 1, the “second electrical terminals” of claim 1, the “mating data interface connector” of claim 1, and the “second electronic device” of claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The “first electrical terminals”, the “second electrical terminals”, the “second electronic device”, and the “mating data interface connector” are mentioned throughout the specification, but they do not have a reference numeral so that they can be identified in the drawings. The Examiner kindly requests Applicant to provide a list of the claimed embodiments and their corresponding reference numerals used in the drawings to facilitate understanding of the disclosure. Additionally, the Examiner notes that if the missing reference numerals are not clarified, the claims may be subject to a 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection for lack of enablement and adequate descriptions.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 – 13, 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5, line 2, recites “comprises a High Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI) standard”. The recitation of “HDMI standard” incorporates an industry standard without specifying a specific version, revision, or date. Industry standards such as HDMI are periodically revised and modified over time. Because the scope of the claimed subject matter would vary depending on which version of the HDMI standard is applied, the metes and bounds of the claim are not fixed and cannot be determined with reasonable certainty at the time of examination. The Examiner suggests applicant to amend the claim to specify a particular version of the HDMI standard at the time of the invention, or to define the structural or functional requirements of the interface independent of an evolving industry standard. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation as requiring only compatibility with an HDMI interface.
Claim 6, line 2, recites “comprises a Display Port (DP) standard”. The recitation of “DP standard” incorporates an industry standard without specifying a specific version, revision, or date. Industry standards such as DP are periodically revised and modified over time. Because the scope of the claimed subject matter would vary depending on which version of the DP standard is applied, the metes and bounds of the claim are not fixed and cannot be determined with reasonable certainty at the time of examination. The Examiner suggests applicant to amend the claim to specify a particular version of the DP standard at the time of the invention, or to define the structural or functional requirements of the interface independent of an evolving industry standard. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation as requiring only compatibility with an DP interface.
Claim 7, lines 1 – 2, recite “comprises a DP Type 2 standard”. The recitation of “DP Type 2 standard” incorporates an industry standard without specifying a specific version, revision, or date. Industry standards such as DP Type 2 are periodically revised and modified over time. Because the scope of the claimed subject matter would vary depending on which version of the DP Type 2 standard is applied, the metes and bounds of the claim are not fixed and cannot be determined with reasonable certainty at the time of examination. The Examiner suggests applicant to amend the claim to specify a particular version of the DP Type standard (i.e. DisplayPort 2.0 or 2.1) at the time of the invention, or to define the structural or functional requirements of the interface independent of an evolving industry standard. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation as requiring only compatibility with an DP interface.
Claim 8, lines 20 – 21, recite “wherein the second electrical terminals of the second data interface connector conform to…”. There is lack of antecedent basis for the term “the second data interface connector”. Nowhere in the claim “A second data interface connector” is recited as a structure. The Examiner notes that there is “a second connector” recited in line 18, but it is unclear whether “the second data interface connector” pertains to said “second connector”, or to a completely different structure. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret as “the second data interface connector” being the same “second connector” recited in line 18.
Claim 11, line 3 recites “conforming to an HDMI standard…”. The recitation of “HDMI standard” incorporates an industry standard without specifying a specific version, revision, or date. Industry standards such as HDMI are periodically revised and modified over time. Because the scope of the claimed subject matter would vary depending on which version of the HDMI standard is applied, the metes and bounds of the claim are not fixed and cannot be determined with reasonable certainty at the time of examination. The Examiner suggests applicant to amend the claim to specify a particular version of the HDMI standard at the time of the invention, or to define the structural or functional requirements of the interface independent of an evolving industry standard. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation as requiring only compatibility with an HDMI interface.
Claim 12, line 2, recites “comprises a Display Port (DP) standard”. The recitation of “DP standard” incorporates an industry standard without specifying a specific version, revision, or date. Industry standards such as DP are periodically revised and modified over time. Because the scope of the claimed subject matter would vary depending on which version of the DP standard is applied, the metes and bounds of the claim are not fixed and cannot be determined with reasonable certainty at the time of examination. The Examiner suggests applicant to amend the claim to specify a particular version of the DP standard at the time of the invention, or to define the structural or functional requirements of the interface independent of an evolving industry standard. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation as requiring only compatibility with an DP interface.
Claim 13, lines 1 – 2, recite “comprises a DP Type 2 standard”. The recitation of “DP Type 2 standard” incorporates an industry standard without specifying a specific version, revision, or date. Industry standards such as DP Type 2 are periodically revised and modified over time. Because the scope of the claimed subject matter would vary depending on which version of the DP Type 2 standard is applied, the metes and bounds of the claim are not fixed and cannot be determined with reasonable certainty at the time of examination. The Examiner suggests applicant to amend the claim to specify a particular version of the DP Type standard (i.e. DisplayPort 2.0 or 2.1) at the time of the invention, or to define the structural or functional requirements of the interface independent of an evolving industry standard. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation as requiring only compatibility with an DP interface.
Claim 18, line 2, recites “comprises a High Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI) standard”. The recitation of “HDMI standard” incorporates an industry standard without specifying a specific version, revision, or date. Industry standards such as HDMI are periodically revised and modified over time. Because the scope of the claimed subject matter would vary depending on which version of the HDMI standard is applied, the metes and bounds of the claim are not fixed and cannot be determined with reasonable certainty at the time of examination. The Examiner suggests applicant to amend the claim to specify a particular version of the HDMI standard at the time of the invention, or to define the structural or functional requirements of the interface independent of an evolving industry standard. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation as requiring only compatibility with an HDMI interface.
Claim 19, line 2, recites “comprises a Display Port (DP) standard”. The recitation of “DP standard” incorporates an industry standard without specifying a specific version, revision, or date. Industry standards such as DP are periodically revised and modified over time. Because the scope of the claimed subject matter would vary depending on which version of the DP standard is applied, the metes and bounds of the claim are not fixed and cannot be determined with reasonable certainty at the time of examination. The Examiner suggests applicant to amend the claim to specify a particular version of the DP standard at the time of the invention, or to define the structural or functional requirements of the interface independent of an evolving industry standard. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation as requiring only compatibility with an DP interface.
Claim 20, line 1, recites “comprises a DP Type 2 standard”. The recitation of “DP Type 2 standard” incorporates an industry standard without specifying a specific version, revision, or date. Industry standards such as DP Type 2 are periodically revised and modified over time. Because the scope of the claimed subject matter would vary depending on which version of the DP Type 2 standard is applied, the metes and bounds of the claim are not fixed and cannot be determined with reasonable certainty at the time of examination. The Examiner suggests applicant to amend the claim to specify a particular version of the DP Type 2 standard (i.e. DisplayPort 2.0 or 2.1) at the time of the invention, or to define the structural or functional requirements of the interface independent of an evolving industry standard. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation as requiring only compatibility with an DP interface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 5, 8 – 11, 14 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wan (US 20190020154).
Regarding claim 1, Wan teaches (figures 1 – 10) a data interface connector comprising:
first electrical terminals (21) at a first end of the data interface connector (100), the first electrical terminals (21) being configured to interface with a mating data interface connector conforming to a first data interface specification (i.e. 21 is capable of interfacing with a mating data interface connector; data interface specification seen in ¶0003); and
second electrical terminals (22) at a second end of the data interface connector (100), the second electrical terminals (22) being configured to interface with data interface pads (see unmarked pads near 51 in figure 5) on a circuit board (5);
wherein the data interface pads (see unmarked pads near 51 in figure 5) have pitches and lengths according to a second data interface specification (¶0003 – ¶0004).
Regarding claim 2, Wan teaches (figures 1 – 10) the data interface connector of claim 1, wherein the second electrical terminals (22) comprise pins (¶0038) having the pitches and the lengths according to the second data interface specification (¶0004) so as to mate with the data interface pads (see unmarked pads near 51 in figure 5).
Regarding claim 3, Wan teaches (figures 1 – 10) the data interface connector of claim 2, wherein the pins (21, 22; ¶0038) comprise nineteen pins (i.e. see number of pins in figure 3) mapped to nineteen of the data interface pads (see unmarked pads near 51 in figure 5), the data interface pads (see unmarked pads near 51 in figure 5) comprising twenty data interface pads (see unmarked pads near 51 in figure 5; 51 is also considered pads).
Regarding claim 4, Wan teaches (figures 1 – 10) the data interface connector of claim 1, wherein the first electrical terminals (21) and the second electrical terminals (22) are connected so as to adapt the mating data interface connector (100) conforming to the first data interface specification (data interface specification seen in ¶0003) to the data interface pads (51) conforming to the second data interface specification (¶0003 – ¶0004).
Regarding claim 5, Wan teaches (figures 1 – 10) the data interface connector of claim 1, wherein the first data interface specification (data interface specification seen in ¶0003) comprises a High Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI) standard (i.e. reference teaches both HDMI and USB interfaces).
Regarding claim 8, Wan teaches (figures 1 – 10) a method of assembling electronic devices, each electronic device (device in figure 3) including a printed circuit board (5) having a data interface connector site (i.e. site where the unmarked pads are located in figure 5) for a data interface connector (100) conforming to a first data interface specification (data interface specification seen in ¶0003), the data interface connector site (i.e. site where the unmarked pads are located in figure 5) comprising data interface connector pads (see unmarked pads near 51 in figure 5) to which electrical terminals (21, 22) for the data interface connector (100) may be soldered (¶0062) to form an electrical connection between the printed circuit board (5) and the data interface connector (100), the method comprising: assembling a first electronic device (device in figure 3) including the printed circuit board (5), wherein the assembling comprises soldering first electrical terminals (21) of a first data interface connector (100) to the data interface connector pads (see unmarked pads near 51 in figure 5) of the data interface connector site (i.e. site where the unmarked pads are located in figure 5) of the printed circuit board (5), wherein the first electrical terminals (21) of the first data interface connector (100) conform to the first data interface specification (data interface specification seen in ¶0003); wherein the first data interface connector (100) comprises a first data interface connector socket (31) having first data interface connector socket terminals (211, 213) that conform to the first data interface specification (data interface specification seen in ¶0003); and assembling a second electronic device (device in figure 8) including the printed circuit board (5), wherein the assembling comprises soldering second electrical terminals (¶0065) of a second connector (connector in figure 8) to the pads (see unmarked pads near 51 in figure 5) of the interface of the printed circuit board (5), wherein the second electrical terminals (22) of the second data interface connector (connector in figure 8) conform to the first data interface specification (data interface specification seen in ¶0003); wherein the second data interface connector (connector in figure 8) comprises a second data interface connector socket (see socket 31 in figure 8) having second data interface connector socket terminals (212, 213) that conform to a second data interface specification (data interface specification seen in ¶0003; both HDMI and USB connectors are disclosed); and wherein the second data interface specification (data interface specification seen in ¶0003; both HDMI and USB connectors are disclosed) is different from the first data interface specification (i.e. USB is different than HDMI).
Regarding claim 9, Wan teaches (figures 1 – 10) the method of assembling electronic devices of claim 8, wherein the second electrical terminals (22) comprise pins (¶0038) having pitches and lengths according to the second data interface specification (¶0004) so as to mate with the data interface pads (see unmarked pads near 51 in figure 5).
Regarding claim 10, Wan teaches (figures 1 – 10) the method of assembling electronic devices of claim 9, wherein the pins (21, 22; ¶0038) comprising nineteen pins (see number of pins in figure 3) mapped to nineteen of the data interface pads (see unmarked pads near 51 in figure 5), the data interface pads (see unmarked pads near 51 in figure 5) comprising twenty data interface pads (see unmarked pads near 51 in figure 5; 51 is also considered pads).
Regarding claim 11, Wan teaches (figures 1 – 10) the method of assembling electronic devices of claim 8, wherein the first electrical terminals (21) and the second electrical terminals (22) are connected so as to adapt a plug data interface connector (plug that connects to 100) conforming to an HDMI standard (¶0003) to the pads (see unmarked pads near 51 in figure 5) conforming to the second data interface specification (data interface specification seen in ¶0003; both HDMI and USB connectors are disclosed).
Regarding claim 14, Wan teaches (figures 1 – 10) a system comprising:
a printed circuit board (5) of an integrated circuit comprising data interface pads (see unmarked pads near 51 in figure 5) having pitches and lengths according to a second data interface specification (¶0003 – ¶0004); and
a socket data interface connector (100) comprising:
first electrical terminals (21) at a first end of a data interface connector (100), the first electrical terminals (21) being configured to interface with a mating data interface connector conforming to a first data interface specification (i.e. 21 is capable of interfacing with a mating data interface connector; data interface specification seen in ¶0003); and
second electrical terminals (22) at a second end of the data interface connector (100), the second electrical terminals (22) being configured to interface with the data interface pads (see unmarked pads near 51 in figure 5) on a circuit board (5).
Regarding claim 15, Wan teaches (figures 1 – 10) the system of claim 14, wherein the second electrical terminals (22) comprise pins (¶0038) having the pitches and the lengths according to the second data interface specification (¶0004) so as to mate with the data interface pads (see unmarked pads near 51 in figure 5).
Regarding claim 16, Wan teaches (figures 1 – 10) the system of claim 15, wherein the pins (21, 22; ¶0038) comprising nineteen pins (i.e. see number of pins in figure 3) mapped to nineteen of the data interface pads (see unmarked pads near 51 in figure 5), the data interface pads (see unmarked pads near 51 in figure 5) comprising twenty data interface pads (see unmarked pads near 51 in figure 5; 51 is also considered pads).
Regarding claim 17, Wan teaches (figures 1 – 10) the system of claim 14, wherein the first electrical terminals (21) and the second electrical terminals (22) are connected so as to adapt the mating data interface connector (100) conforming to the first data interface specification (data interface specification seen in ¶0003) to the data interface pads (see unmarked pads near 51 in figure 5) conforming to the second data interface specification (data interface specification seen in ¶0003; both HDMI and USB connectors are disclosed).
Regarding claim 18, Wan teaches (figures 1 – 10) the system of claim 14, wherein the first data interface specification (data interface specification seen in ¶0003) comprises a High Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI) standard (i.e. reference teaches both HDMI and USB interfaces).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 12, 13, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan (US 20190020154) in view of Toda (US 20160254619)
Regarding claim 6, Wan teaches (figures 1 – 10) the data interface connector of claim 1.
But Wan does not explicitly disclose wherein the second data interface specification comprises a DisplayPort (DP) standard.
Toda teaches (figures 1 – 13) a connector wherein the second data interface specification (interface specification of 1) comprises a DisplayPort (DP) standard (¶0003).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the connector structure of Wan with the connector structure as disclosed by Toda to provide the second data interface specification comprising a DisplayPort (DP) standard, as HDMI and DisplayPort are well known digital display interface standards that perform the same function of transmitting digital video and audio between devices, and applying the DisplayPort pin assignments would have predictably allowed the connector to mate with DisplayPort compliant devices.
Regarding claim 7, Wan teaches (figures 1 – 10) the data interface connector of claim 6.
But Wan does not explicitly disclose wherein the DP standard comprises a DP Type 2 standard.
Toda teaches (figures 1 – 13) a connector wherein the DP standard comprises a DP Type 2 standard (¶0003).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the connector structure of Wan with the connector structure taught by Toda to provide the DP standard comprising a DP Type 2 standard. DisplayPort Type 2 utilizes the same connector form factor and terminal arrangement as other DisplayPort implementations, differing only in signaling and performance parameters. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the Type 2 revision to allow the connector to mate with DisplayPort Type 2 compliant devices. Implementing the DisplayPort Type 2 industry standard would have only involved routine design choices and would have predictably yielded a connector compatible with DisplayPort Type 2 devices.
Regarding claim 12, Wan teaches (figures 1 – 10) the method of assembling electronic devices of claim 8.
But Wan does not explicitly disclose wherein the second data interface specification comprises a DisplayPort (DP) standard.
Toda teaches (figures 1 – 13) a connector wherein the second data interface specification (interface specification of 1) comprises a DisplayPort (DP) standard (¶0003).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the connector structure of Wan with the connector structure as disclosed by Toda to provide the second data interface specification comprising a DisplayPort (DP) standard, as HDMI and DisplayPort are well known digital display interface standards that perform the same function of transmitting digital video and audio between devices, and applying the DisplayPort pin assignments would have predictably allowed the connector to mate with DisplayPort compliant devices.
Regarding claim 13, Wan teaches (figures 1 – 10) the method of assembling electronic devices of claim 12.
But Wan does not explicitly disclose wherein the DP standard comprises a DP Type 2 standard.
Toda teaches (figures 1 – 13) a connector wherein the DP standard comprises a DP Type 2 standard (¶0003).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the connector structure of Wan with the connector structure taught by Toda to provide the DP standard comprising a DP Type 2 standard. DisplayPort Type 2 utilizes the same connector form factor and terminal arrangement as other DisplayPort implementations, differing only in signaling and performance parameters. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the Type 2 revision to allow the connector to mate with DisplayPort Type 2 compliant devices. Implementing the DisplayPort Type 2 industry standard would have only involved routine design choices and would have predictably yielded a connector compatible with DisplayPort Type 2 devices.
Regarding claim 19, Wan teaches (figures 1 – 10) the system of claim 14.
But Wan does not explicitly disclose wherein the second data interface specification comprises a DisplayPort (DP) standard.
Toda teaches (figures 1 – 13) a connector wherein the second data interface specification (interface specification of 1) comprises a DisplayPort (DP) standard (¶0003).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the connector structure of Wan with the connector structure as disclosed by Toda to provide the second data interface specification comprising a DisplayPort (DP) standard, as HDMI and DisplayPort are well known digital display interface standards that perform the same function of transmitting digital video and audio between devices, and applying the DisplayPort pin assignments would have predictably allowed the connector to mate with DisplayPort compliant devices.
Regarding claim 20, Wan teaches (figures 1 – 10) the system of claim 14.
But Wan does not explicitly disclose wherein the DP standard comprises a DP Type 2 standard.
Toda teaches (figures 1 – 13) a connector wherein the DP standard comprises a DP Type 2 standard (¶0003).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the connector structure of Wan with the connector structure taught by Toda to provide the DP standard comprising a DP Type 2 standard. DisplayPort Type 2 utilizes the same connector form factor and terminal arrangement as other DisplayPort implementations, differing only in signaling and performance parameters. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the Type 2 revision to allow the connector to mate with DisplayPort Type 2 compliant devices. Implementing the DisplayPort Type 2 industry standard would have only involved routine design choices and would have predictably yielded a connector compatible with DisplayPort Type 2 devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlos E. Lopez-Pagan whose telephone number is (703)756-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30a - 5:00p.
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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2098. 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.
/CARLOS E LOPEZ-PAGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834