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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5, 18, and 22-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, Species A3-A6, and Species B1, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/13/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A1 and Species A2 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species A1 and Species A2 are not mutually exclusive. This is found persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation is:
“Ion receiving portion” in claim 1 interpreted to be any space in which ions are received.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “RF pseudopotential surface” 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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Masuyuki Sugiyama (US 20190148122 A1), hereinafter referred to as Sugiyama.
Regarding claim 1, an ion guide comprising: an ion receiving portion configured to receive ions along a first axis (Fig. 1 as annotated below) and an ion outlet configured for ejection of ions from the ion guide along a second axis different from the first axis (Fig. 1 as annotated below);
a deflector electrode configured to receive a DC potential to deflect ions away from the first axis and towards the second axis (The offset DC voltages are applied such that an electric field that moves the ions of a sample to be measured toward the rod electrode set 2 from the rod electrode set 1, is formed (Para. [0049])) (Fig. 4 as annotated below);
and a plurality of electrodes having a substantially planar surface parallel to the second axis (The rod electrodes … 22c, … and 22b have a shape, such as a semicircular column (para. [0046])) and configured to receive RF voltages such that there is a voltage phase difference between adjacent electrodes to generate a RF field thereby (Fig. 22 as annotated below),
As shown in Figure 4 below, the plurality of electrodes, (rod electrodes 22c and 22b) are semicircular with a planar surface parallel to the second axis.
PNG
media_image1.png
346
761
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the RF field directing the deflected ions on to the second axis towards the ion outlet (Fig. 1 as annotated below), wherein the plurality of electrodes is configured to generate a substantially planar RF pseudopotential surface when the RF voltages are received (the pseudopotential is formed of four rod electrodes of the rod electrode set 2 (para. [0062])).
The instant claim recites “wherein the plurality of electrodes is configured to generate a substantially planar RF pseudopotential surface when the RF voltages are received.” This limitation is a functional limitation regarding the effect of planar electrodes. The specification of the present disclosure explains “one or more (or each) of the plurality of electrodes may have a substantially planar face parallel to the second axis. The RF surface may thus generate a substantially planar RF pseudopotential surface parallel to the second axis when receiving the RF voltages.” As such, the specification represents that the combination of: 1) the structure of the electrodes and 2) the RF voltages applied yields the functional limitations at issue. Accordingly, the functional limitation at issue is interpreted to describe functions performable by the electrodes when such arrangements and voltage applications are realized. To wit, the claimed electrodes must be electrodes that could be used in the invention described in the instant specification. Therefore, the electrodes of Sugiyama, could create a substantially planar pseudopotential given their semicircular shape with a planar surface parallel to the second axis.
PNG
media_image2.png
391
792
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Further, Sugiyama teaches wherein the deflector electrode and the plurality of electrodes are separated in a direction (Fig. 4 as annotated below) and the ion guide is configured to compress the ion beam in the direction (As the effect of converging the ions increases, the effect that the ions transmit through the fine hole 11 at a rear end of the ion guide increases (para. [0062])) and/or along an axis perpendicular to the direction through a combination of the DC potential and the RF field (In addition, DC offset voltages are applied to the rod electrode set in addition to the RF voltages (para. [0049])).
PNG
media_image3.png
387
883
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The deflector electrode and plurality of electrodes are separated in the z-direction. Ions are compressed (converging effect) along the z-axis, so as to be transmitted through hole 11.
Regarding claim 2, Sugiyama teaches the ion guide of claim 1, wherein the separation of the deflector electrode and the plurality of electrodes varies along the ion guide (Fig. 16).
The deflector electrode is made up of different rod electrodes with different heights such that the separation of the deflector electrode and the plurality of electrodes varies per rod electrode.
Regarding claim 3, Sugiyama the ion guide of claim 2, wherein the deflector electrode comprises a first section and a second section and the separation of the first section and the plurality of electrodes is greater than the separation of the second section and the plurality of electrodes (Fig. 16 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image4.png
406
429
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Sugiyama teaches the ion guide of claim 3, wherein the first and second sections are separated in the direction and are provided on either side of the first axis such that undeflected molecules pass between the first section and the second section, and the deflected ions pass between the second section and the plurality of electrodes (Fig. 13 A as annotated below).
Regarding claim 6, Sugiyama teaches the ion guide of claim 1, wherein: the first and second axes are separated in the direction; and/or the first axis is parallel to the second axis (Fig. 13 A as annotated below).
PNG
media_image5.png
322
725
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Sugiyama teaches the ion guide of claim 1, wherein the plurality of electrodes are arranged in a plane parallel to the second axis (Fig. 16 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image6.png
324
658
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Sugiyama teaches the ion guide of claim 1, wherein one or more of the plurality of electrodes are segmented (Fig. 16) and each segment is configured to receive a respective DC voltage (The same segment DC voltage is applied to the rod electrode included in the same segment (para. [0072])).
Regarding claim 21, Sugiyama teaches the ion guide of claim 1, wherein the ion guide is arranged between an atmospheric pressure ion source configured to provide the ions along the first axis (Ions which are generated by an ion source 14, such as an electro-spray ion source, an atmospheric pressure chemical ion source, an atmospheric pressure photoion source, and an atmospheric pressure matrix-assisted laser desorbed ion source, are introduced into a vacuum chamber of the mass spectrometer passing through a fine hole 18 together with air current (para. [0042])) and a vacuum chamber for receiving the ejected ions (The mass spectrometry portion 13 is exhausted by a vacuum pump 16 (para. [0042])).
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama, in view of Kevin Giles (US 8581181 B2) hereinafter referred to as Giles.
Regarding claim 20, Sugiyama teaches the ion guide of claim 1, further comprising an exhaust port such that undeflected molecules are ejected from the ion guide via the exhaust port (In the differential exhaust portion 12, an ion guide 4 for transporting the ions is installed, and the ions are exhausted by a vacuum pump 15 (para. [0042])).
Sugiyama fails to teach an exhaust port aligned with the first axis.
However, Giles teaches an exhaust port aligned with the first axis (Fig. 8 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image7.png
226
573
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Sugiyama to include the teachings of Giles by aligning the exhaust port with the first axis. Doing so improves ease of operation because undeflected neutral particles, do not have to change axis again before being exhausted.
Claims 1, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Philip Marriott (WO 2022175465 A1) herein after referred to as Marriott, in view of Sugiyama.
Regarding claim 1, Marriott teaches an ion guide comprising: an ion receiving portion configured to receive ions along a first axis and an ion outlet configured for ejection of ions from the ion guide along a second axis different from the first axis (Fig. 18 as annotated below);
a deflector electrode configured to receive a DC potential to deflect ions away from the first axis and towards the second axis (For transmission of ions through the first ion guide 510 along a straight line, a repulsive voltage is applied to the first transfer electrode 530. For transfer into the second ion guide 520 along path 515, this voltage is switched to attractive one (negative for positive ions). The resulting field extracts ions from the aperture in the first ion guide 510 (page 46, lines 5-8));
and a plurality of electrodes having a substantially planar surface parallel to the second axis and configured to receive RF voltages such that there is a voltage phase difference between adjacent electrodes to generate a RF field thereby, the RF field directing the deflected ions on to the second axis towards the ion outlet (Fig. 17 as annotated below),
wherein the plurality of electrodes is configured to generate a substantially planar RF pseudopotential surface when the RF voltages are received (second ion guide 520),
The instant claim recites “wherein the plurality of electrodes is configured to generate a substantially planar RF pseudopotential surface when the RF voltages are received.” This limitation is a functional limitation regarding the effect of planar electrodes. The specification of the present disclosure explains “one or more (or each) of the plurality of electrodes may have a substantially planar face parallel to the second axis. The RF surface may thus generate a substantially planar RF pseudopotential surface parallel to the second axis when receiving the RF voltages.” As such, the specification represents that the combination of: 1) the structure of the electrodes and 2) the RF voltages applied yields the functional limitations at issue. Accordingly, the functional limitation at issue is interpreted to describe functions performable by the electrodes when such arrangements and voltage applications are realized. To wit, the claimed electrodes must be electrodes that could be used in the invention described in the instant specification. Therefore, the planar electrodes of Marriot are configured to create a substantially planar pseudopotential.
Marriott further teaches, wherein the deflector electrode and the plurality of electrodes are separated in a direction (Fig. 17 as annotated below).
Marriott fails to explicitly teach the ion guide is configured to compress the ion beam in the direction and/or along an axis perpendicular to the direction through a combination of the DC potential and the RF field.
However, Sugiyama teaches the ion guide is configured to compress the ion beam in the direction and/or along an axis perpendicular to the direction through a combination of the DC potential and the RF field (the pseudopotential is formed of four rod electrodes of the rod electrode set 2, and the ions are converged at the center axis of the rod electrode set 2 in the region 3 (para. [0062])) (In addition, DC offset voltages are applied to the rod electrode set in addition to the RF voltages (para. [0049])).
Marriot teaches an ion guide that uses both DC and RF voltages to confine ions and direct them towards an outlet. Sugiyama teaches the use of DC and RF voltages to compress ions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Marriott to include the teachings of Sugiyama such that the DC and RF potentials are used to compress the ion beam in the direction. Compressing the ion beam allows for more ions to be transferred through the outlet.
Regarding claim 8, Marriott teaches the ion guide of claim 1, wherein the deflector electrode is a plate electrode having a plane parallel to the first axis (Fig. 18 as annotated below).
Regarding claim 9, Marriott teaches the ion guide of claim 1, wherein the plurality of electrodes comprise a plurality of stacked electrodes (Fig. 17 as annotated below) or a plurality of PCB electrodes.
PNG
media_image8.png
577
1090
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claims 10, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marriott, in view of Sugiyama, and in further view of Dmitry Grinfeld (US 20150228467 A1), hereinafter referred to as Grinfeld.
Regarding claim 10, Marriott fails to teach the ion guide of claim 1, further comprising a DC electrode between one or more pairs of the plurality of electrodes, wherein the DC electrode is configured to receive a DC potential to direct the ions along the second axis towards the ion outlet.
However, Grinfeld teaches a DC electrode between one or more pairs of the plurality of electrodes (Fig. 4 as annotated below), wherein the DC electrode is configured to receive a DC potential to direct the ions along the second axis towards the ion outlet (Central DC electrode (80) lies between the RF electrodes (72a, 72b) with a small gap of PCB dielectric surface open between adjacent electrodes to prevent electrical contact between the RF electrodes and DC electrode (para. [0057])).
PNG
media_image9.png
390
594
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Marriott to include the teachings of Grinfeld by placing a DC electrode in between the plurality of electrodes. Doing so promotes faster ion transport (Grinfeld; para. [0045]).
Regarding claim 14, Marriott fails to teach the ion guide of claim 10, further comprising auxiliary DC electrodes configured to focus the deflected ions towards the ion outlet.
However, Grinfeld teaches auxiliary DC electrodes configured to focus the deflected ions towards the ion outlet (the PCB (70) also has planar metal DC electrodes (80, 82a, 82b) (para. [0057])) (An axial voltage distribution can be applied to the electrode segments of each DC electrode to provide an axial driving field for the ions to move them from entrance to exit (para. [0058])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Marriott to include the teachings of Grinfeld by incorporating the auxiliar DC electrodes for more efficient ion transport.
Regarding claim 15, Marriott fails to teach the ion guide of claim 14, wherein the DC electrode between the one or more pairs is a PCB electrode and/or the auxiliary DC electrodes are PCB electrodes.
However, Grinfeld teaches wherein the DC electrode between the one or more pairs is a PCB electrode and/or the auxiliary DC electrodes are PCB electrodes (The PCB (70) also has planar metal DC electrodes (80, 82a, 82b) (para. [0057])).
Grinfeld teaches the DC electrode between the one or more pairs is a PCB electrode and the auxiliary DC electrodes are PCB electrodes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Marriott to include the teachings of Grinfeld such that the DC electrodes between the pairs of the plurality of electrodes and the auxiliary DC electrodes are PCB. PCB allows for ease of manufacturing and is a cost-effective material.
Regarding claim 16, Marriott fails to teach the ion guide of claim 14 wherein the plurality of electrodes are provided on a first surface comprising a PCB and the DC electrode and/or the auxiliary DC electrodes are mounted to or positioned above the PCB.
However, Grinfeld teaches the ion guide of claim 14 wherein the plurality of electrodes are provided on a first surface comprising a PCB and the DC electrode and (Fig. 5 as annotated below)/or the auxiliary DC electrodes are mounted to or positioned above the PCB (The PCB (70) also has planar metal DC electrodes (80, 82a, 82b) (para. [0057])).
PNG
media_image10.png
416
546
media_image10.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Marriott such that the plurality of electrodes, DC electrode and the auxiliary electrodes are mounted on PCB. PCB allows for ease of manufacturing and is a cost-effective material.
Regarding claim 17, Marriott teaches the ion guide of claim 14, wherein the deflector electrode is configured to receive a constant or pulsed DC voltage to direct the ions along the second axis towards the ion outlet (a voltage pulse on both transfer electrodes is applied while ion packet is moving between the two transfer electrodes, so that DC voltage continues to drive ions towards the second (downstream) ion guide A2 (pg 46, lines 24-26)).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marriott, in view of Sugiyama, and in further view of David Welkie (US 20190043705 A1), hereinafter referred to as Welkie705.
Regarding claim 11, Marriott teaches the ion guide of claim 1, wherein an arrangement of the plurality of electrodes extends in a dimension perpendicular to the direction (Fig. 17 as annotated above).
Marriott fails to teach wherein the extension of the arrangement progressively decreases.
However, Welkie705 wherein the extension of the arrangement progressively decreases (Fig. 10c as annotated below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Marriott to include the teachings of Welkie705 by making the plurality of electrodes decrease in length in the dimension. Doing so produces a “variable auxiliary field (para. [0158])” so the field can be kept fixed.
Regarding claim 12, Marriott fails to teach the ion guide of claim 11, wherein: the plurality of electrodes comprises a 2D array of electrodes and wherein progressively fewer electrodes are provided in subsequent electrode rows to progressively decrease the extension; or wherein one or more of the plurality of electrodes have a length in the dimension and the lengths progressivly decrease to progressively decrease the extension; or wherein one or more of the plurality of electrodes have a length parallel to the second axis and the lengths progressively decrease to progressively decrease the extension.
However, Welkie705 teaches wherein: the plurality of electrodes comprises a 2D array of electrodes and wherein progressively fewer electrodes are provided in subsequent electrode rows to progressively decrease the extension; or wherein one or more of the plurality of electrodes have a length in the dimension and the lengths progressively decrease to progressively decrease the extension; or wherein one or more of the plurality of electrodes have a length parallel to the second axis and the lengths progressively decrease to progressively decrease the extension (Fig. 10c as annotated below).
PNG
media_image11.png
252
736
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marriott, in view of Sugiyama, and in further view of Welki705, and Keke Wang (US 20220102128 A1), hereinafter referred to as Wang.
Regarding claim 13, Marriott fails to teach each the ion guide of claim 11, wherein the extension progressively decreases towards the ion outlet.
However, Wang teaches wherein the extension progressively decreases towards the ion outlet (As shown in FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, lengths of two axisymmetric electrode units 102 and 104 in the ring electrodes 10, 11, and 12 at a tail end of the predetermined direction gradually decrease along an axial direction of the device (para. [0043])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Marriott, in view of Welki705, include the teachings of Wang such that the extension progressively decreases towards the ion outlet. As explained by Wang “a shorter electrode unit can confine the ions in close vicinity so as to compress the ion beam to a much smaller size and improve the transmission efficiency of the ion beam by pushing the ions from both sides to the middle (para. [0019]).”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICA J. EINHORN whose telephone number is (571)272-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Kim can be reached at (571) 272-2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICA JILLIAN EINHORN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights