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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0017] recites “a pair of mains surfaces”, which should read ‘a pair of main surfaces’;
[0035] recites “As illustrated in Fig. 3, the fourth electrode 11 and the fifth electrode 12 of the ionization source 10 are connected to the ionization source controller 44.”, however, Fig. 3 is a plot, not a diagrammatic figure, and none of the figures shows a specific connection of items 11 and 12 to item 44; Fig. 2 shows 44 being connected to item 10, however, this figure does not show such a connection of the specific electrodes;
[0037] recites “liner distance”, which should read ‘linear distance’;
[0039] recites “(see Fig. 3)”, however, Fig. 3 is a plot, not a diagrammatic figure of the lead wires and/or potential adjusters;
[0042] recites “it is concerned that the corona discharge may not be…”, which does not make sense upon plain reading;
[0042], near the middle of p. 44, recites “since the distance D1 between the fifth electrode 12 and the fourth electrode 11 is 10 mm or greater, it is possible to reduce the value of a voltage…”, which contradicts the previous discussion, that indicates D1 should be between 1.5 and 10 mm, and since increasing beyond the aforementioned 10 mm would likely increase the voltage necessary, rather that reduce it; Examiner believes this is a typographical/clerical error that should read ’10 mm or less’.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “wherein the one electrode includes a plurality of the needle-like portions”; While Examiner believes the limitation is definite in context, ‘the needle-like portions’ lacks antecedent basis, as only a single needle-like portions is previously required in claim 3; However, given the context, it is clear that this limitation is intended to require the electrode include a plurality of needle-like portions, such as that required by claim 3; Accordingly, the claim should read ‘wherein the one electrode includes a plurality of needle-like portions’;
Claim 7 recites “a center of curvature the other electrode”, which should read ‘a center of curvature of the other electrode’;
Claim 9 lacks punctuation, such that the meaning of the claim somewhat unclear; Examiner believes the claim is definite in context, but should nevertheless read ‘wherein a plurality of electrode sets, each of which is composed of the fourth electrode and the fifth electrode, are disposed at positions that are separated with a distance therebetween in a first direction that is along the flow path’ to improve clarity.
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 1-9 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 1 recites “a second electrode that is provided on the second main surface of the second substrate, that faces the first electrode with a gap therebetween, and that forms a flow path for charged particles, which are to be detected, between the second electrode and the first electrode”, which is ambiguous in its several recitations of ‘that’, which do not appear to all refer to the same item. Additionally some recitations of ‘that’ in this limitation could be reasonably interpreted to refer to another element. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. The language should be clarified to ensure each of the limitations corresponds to the proper element. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘a second electrode that is provided on the second main surface of the second substrate, the second electrode facing the first electrode with a gap therebetween, thereby forming a flow path for charged particles, which are to be detected, between the second electrode and the first electrode’.
Claim 1 recites “a fifth electrode that is provided on the second main surface of the second substrate, that is disposed on the upstream side of the flow path relative to the second electrode, and that generates corona discharge between the fifth electrode and the fourth electrode”, which is indefinite for similar reasons to claim 1 above. Additionally, the requirement that ‘a fifth electrode…that generates corona discharge between the fifth electrode and the fourth electrode’ appears contradictory, as the corona discharge requires both the fifth and fourth electrodes. It is unclear how the fifth electrode alone could generate the discharge between the fourth and fifth electrodes. Furthermore, as the claim is directed to a device, such functional limitations would be directed toward capabilities of the structure, rather than requiring actual performance thereof (such as in a method claim). As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘a fifth electrode that is provided on the second main surface of the second substrate, the fifth electrode being disposed on the upstream side of the flow path relative to the second electrode, thereby allowing generation of corona discharge between the fifth electrode and the fourth electrode’.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the fourth electrode and the fifth electrode are disposed to be displaced relative to each other on the upstream side and the downstream side of the flow path”. It is unclear what is required by ‘disposed to be displaced relative to each other on the upstream side and the downstream side of the flow path’, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). First, it is unclear what about their disposal would allow the electrodes to be displaced relative to each other. Additionally, ‘the upstream side’, as previously recited in the claim, refers to ‘an upstream side of the flow path relative to the first/second electrode’, and ‘the downstream side’, as previously recited in the claim, refers to ‘a downstream side of the flow path relative to the first/second electrode’. It is unclear how the fourth and fifth electrode can be displaced relative to each other upstream and downstream of the first and second electrodes, as both the fourth and fifth electrodes are previously required by the claim to be on the upstream side relative to the first and second electrodes. Finally, ‘on the upstream side and the downstream side of the flow path’ itself is unclear, as previous recitations all refer to ‘the upstream side’ and ‘the downstream side’ relative to additional elements (e.g., the first and second electrodes). As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘wherein the fourth electrode and the fifth electrode are disposed displaced relative to each other in a first direction along the flow path’. In accordance, claim 3 is interpreted as ending with the modified limitation ‘in the first direction along the flow path.’ to agree with the interpretation adopted for claim 1.
Claim 2 suffers from a similar issue to claim 1 regarding the limitation ‘on the upstream side and the downstream side of the flow path’, which is similarly interpreted as ‘in the first direction along the flow path’.
Claim 7 recites “a center of curvature [of] the other electrode is positioned on the needle-like portion side in the first direction”. It is unclear what is required by ‘positioned on the needle-like portion side in the first direction’, as ‘the needle-like portion side’ lacks antecedent basis, and is not defined relative to another element, and is thus ambiguous. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘a center of curvature of the other electrode is positioned proximate the needle-like portion in the first direction’.
Claim 8 suffers from a similar issue to claim 1 regarding the limitation ‘on the upstream/downstream side of the flow path’, which is similarly interpreted as ‘wherein one of the fourth electrode and the fifth electrode that is disposed on an upstream side of the flow path in the first direction relative to the other is a positive electrode, and the other of the fourth electrode and the fifth electrode that is disposed on a downstream side of the flow path in the first direction relative to the one is a negative electrode’.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20050230616 A1), in view of Matthews (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20130026357 A1).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Cameron teaches a detector comprising:
a first substrate having a first main surface (See Figs. 2-7, e.g., Fig. 2A, item 22 or 24, having respective surfaces 22a, 24a facing the opposite of item 22 or 24; [0067]-[0077]; See also: Respective descriptions of additional figures cited; Examiner notes that ‘first’ and ‘second’ are arbitrary, and either could be reasonably be interpreted as ‘first’ or ‘second’, so long as they read on the requirements thereof);
a second substrate having a second main surface that faces the first main surface of the first substrate with a gap therebetween (See Figs. 2-7, e.g., Fig. 2A, item 22 or 24, having respective surfaces 22a, 24a facing the opposite of item 22 or 24, having a gap therebetween; [0067]-[0077]; See also: Respective descriptions of additional figures cited);
a first electrode that is provided on the first main surface of the first substrate (See Figs. 2, 4-7, e.g., Fig. 2A, items 26 or 28, respectively disposed on surfaces 22a and 24a of substrates 22 and 24; [0067]-[0077]; See also: Respective descriptions of additional figures cited);
a second electrode that is provided on the second main surface of the second substrate, that faces the first electrode with a gap therebetween (See Figs. 2, 4-7, e.g., Fig. 2A, items 26 or 28, respectively disposed on surfaces 22a and 24a of substrates 22 and 24, facing one another, with a gap therebetween; [0067]-[0077]; See also: Respective descriptions of additional figures cited), and that forms a flow path for charged particles, which are to be detected ([0071]), between the second electrode and the first electrode (See Figs. 2, 4-7, e.g., Fig. 2A, items 26 and 28, respectively disposed on surfaces 22a and 24a of substrates 22 and 24, facing one another, with a gap therebetween, for charged particle to flow, i.e., sample 14, ionized by 20a, 20b; [0067]-[0077]; See also: Respective descriptions of additional figures cited);
a third electrode that is provided on the first main surface of the first substrate or the second main surface of the second substrate, that is disposed on a downstream side of the flow path relative to the first electrode or the second electrode, and that collects the charged particles (See Figs. 2, 4-7, e.g., Fig. 2A, items 30 or 32, respectively disposed on surfaces 22a and 24a of substrates 22 and 24, downstream of the first and second electrodes; [0067]-[0077], in particular [0071]-[0076]; See also Fig. 7, [0113]; See also: Respective descriptions of additional figures cited);
a fourth electrode that is provided on the first main surface of the first substrate and that is disposed on an upstream side of the flow path relative to the first electrode (See Figs. 2, 4-7, e.g., Fig. 2A, items 20a or 20b, respectively disposed on surfaces 22a and 24a of substrates 22 and 24, upstream of the first and second electrodes; [0067]-[0077]); and
a fifth electrode that is provided on the second main surface of the second substrate, that is disposed on the upstream side of the flow path relative to the second electrode, and that generates corona discharge between the fifth electrode and the fourth electrode (See above 35 U.S.C. 112(b) interpretation adopted above; See Figs. 2, 4-7, e.g., Fig. 2A, items 20a or 20b, respectively disposed on surfaces 22a and 24a of substrates 22 and 24, upstream of the first and second electrodes; [0067]-[0077], and in particular [0071]),
Cameron does not explicitly teach wherein the fourth electrode and the fifth electrode are disposed to be displaced relative to each other on the upstream side and the downstream side of the flow path.
However, it is Examiner’s opinion that it would at least be within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Cameron to offset the discharge electrodes relative to one another. This does not necessarily render such a modification obvious, rather, is merely an indication of the general abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art, which in the field of field asymmetric/differential ion mobility spectrometers is relatively high, with an ordinarily skilled artisan likely having an advanced degree in physical sciences or engineering of some kind. Additionally, Examiner notes that Cameron does not particularly limit the ionization electrodes in disposal and/or morphology.
Nevertheless, Matthews teaches wherein the fourth electrode and the fifth electrode are disposed to be displaced relative to each other on the upstream side and the downstream side of the flow path (See above 35 U.S.C. 112(b) interpretation adopted above; See Fig. 5, items 502 and 504, which are offset relative to one another in the direction of the flow path; [0137]).
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 Cameron to include wherein the fourth electrode and the fifth electrode are disposed to be displaced relative to each other on the upstream side and the downstream side of the flow path, as taught by Matthews.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as Matthews teaches a similar corona discharge ionization electrode arrangement according to a specific embodiment of the electrodes (i.e., a further reduction to practice of the specific electrode arrangement of the ionization source), which could be readily applied to the arrangement of Cameron by an ordinarily skilled artisan with a reasonable expectation of success, as it amounts to an alternative embodiment of a disclosed structure/element (i.e., the ionization source having electrodes on opposing surfaces of substrates) and would allow one, as taught by Matthews, to account for variations in the air flow.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Cameron, in view of Matthews, teaches the detector according to Claim 1.
Matthews further teaches wherein the fourth electrode and the fifth electrode are disposed with a distance therebetween on the upstream side and the downstream side of the flow path (See above 35 U.S.C. 112(b) interpretation adopted above; See Fig. 5, items 502 and 504, which have distance therebetween, i.e., do not spatially overlap, in the direction of the flow path; [0137]).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Cameron, in view of Matthews, teaches the detector according to Claim 1.
Matthew further teaches wherein one electrode among the fourth electrode and the fifth electrode includes a needle-like portion (See Fig. 5, item 502) whose width decreases toward the other electrode among the fourth electrode and the fifth electrode in a first direction that is along the flow path (See Fig. 5, item 502, whose width decreased toward the electrodes 504 in directions along flow path).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Cameron, in view of Matthews, teaches the detector according to Claim 3,
Cameron in view of Matthews does not explicitly teach wherein a radius of curvature of the needle-like portion is in a range of 30 μm to 200 μm, and wherein a distance between the one electrode and the other electrode is in a range of 1.5 mm to 10 mm.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the radius of curvature of a corona discharge needle and the distance between the corona discharge electrodes as being result-effective variables, as modifying such a value will naturally have a predictable consequence on the performance thereof, which one of ordinary skill in the art would be readily apprised of.
Additionally, the electrodes of Matthews are disposed at a distance adequate to support corona discharge between a needle-like electrode and an opposing electrode in order to function as described, and the radius of curvature of the needle-like electrode is similarly adequate to support corona discharge between the needle-like electrode and the opposing electrode in order to function as described. Additionally, Matthews discloses offsetting the opposing electrodes and needle-like electrode from one another in the flow direction, and thus, and ordinarily skilled artisan would understand Matthews disclosing sufficient conditions for the electrode separation and the radius of curvature to achieve adequate corona discharge, even given an offset relative positioning, in order to function as described.
In other words, Cameron, in view of Matthews, discloses the claimed invention except for specific ranges for the needle morphology and the electrode separation.
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 Cameron, in view of Matthews, to include wherein a radius of curvature of the needle-like portion is in a range of 30 μm to 200 μm, and wherein a distance between the one electrode and the other electrode is in a range of 1.5 mm to 10 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Doing so would allow one to determine the necessary (relative) physical conditions of the prior art disclosed elements in order to achieve the disclosed corona discharge, and could be readily determined via routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success.
For completeness: Examiner notes that an ‘obvious to try’ analysis could similarly be applied, and further notes that various prior art documents explicitly disclose values within the required range, e.g., Xu (US 20040164238 A1) teaches a distance between the one electrode and the other electrode is in a range of 1.5 mm to 10 mm ([0028]) and teaches a nearly identical value for the radius of curvature (i.e. 25 μm in [0020]), while Zhang (US 20150188295 A1) teaches a radius of curvature of the needle-like portion is in a range of 30 μm to 200 μm ([0002]; [0033]; i.e., discloses 0.1 mm, equal to 100 μm, in the background, and 0.05 mm, equal to 50 μm). Additional prior art documents identified in the search disclosed additional instances of radii of curvature and/or tip-counter electrode separation within the range (See Ouyang, Li, Ross, Gorbachev, etc. cited below). One or more of such documents could reasonably be combined with Cameron, in view of Matthew.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Cameron, in view of Matthews teaches the detector according to Claim 1.
Matthews further teaches wherein one of the fourth electrode and the fifth electrode that is disposed on the upstream side of the flow path is a positive electrode, and the other of the fourth electrode and the fifth electrode that is disposed on the downstream side of the flow path is a negative electrode (See above 35 U.S.C. 112(b) interpretation adopted above; See Figs. 4, 7, showing applied fields, applied voltages;[0135]-[0136]; Examiner notes that both electrodes receive positive and negative relative voltages at some point in the disclosed asymmetric signal, and are thus interpreted as reading on ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ electrodes respectively).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Cameron, in view of Matthews teaches the detector according to Claim 8.
Cameron, in view of Matthews, does not explicitly teach wherein a plurality of electrode sets each of which is composed of the fourth electrode and the fifth electrode are disposed at positions that are separated with a distance therebetween in a first direction that is along the flow path.
However, this limitation amounts to a mere duplication of the ionization source (i.e., formed of the two electrodes), without any modification thereto.
Accordingly, Cameron, in view of Matthews, discloses the claimed invention except for the repetition of the ionization source at a plurality of positions along the flow path.
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 Cameron, in view of Matthews, to include a plurality of the disclosed ionization source thereof along the flow path, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Doing so would have the predictable result of further ionizing the sample, and could be readily applied by an ordinarily skilled artisan with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20050230616 A1), in view of Matthews (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20130026357 A1) and Li (CNIPA Doc. No. CN 111370291 A).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Cameron, in view of Matthews, teaches the detector according to Claim 3.
Cameron, in view of Matthews, does not explicitly teach wherein the one electrode includes a plurality of the needle-like portions, and wherein the plurality of needle-like portions are arranged with a distance therebetween in a second direction that is along the first main surface or the second main surface and that intersects the first direction.
Li teaches wherein the one electrode includes a plurality of the needle-like portions, and wherein the plurality of needle-like portions are arranged with a distance therebetween in a second direction that is along the first main surface or the second main surface and that intersects the first direction (See Figs. 1-4, items 6, which are spaced in direction parallel to one of the main surfaces that intersects the flow direction).
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 Cameron, in view of Matthews, to include wherein the one electrode includes a plurality of the needle-like portions, and wherein the plurality of needle-like portions are arranged with a distance therebetween in a second direction that is along the first main surface or the second main surface and that intersects the first direction, as taught by Li.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, because Li, similar to Matthews, discloses a specific embodiment of ionization source electrodes (i.e., a specific reduction to practice) that could reasonably be applied by an ordinarily skilled artisan to the arrangement of Cameron with a reasonable expectation of success (i.e., in the reduction to practice of the not-particularly-limited ionization source of Cameron, in the manner disclosed by Li), as it amounts to an alternative embodiment of a disclosed structure/element (i.e., the ionization source having electrodes on opposing surfaces of substrates) and would allow one, as taught by Li, to ionize large portions of the sample (see method step (2)).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Cameron, in view of Matthews and Li, teaches the detector according to Claim 5.
Li further teaches wherein the one electrode includes a trunk portion that extends in the second direction and with which the plurality of needle-like portions are continuous (See Figs. 1-4, items 6, the needle-like portions of which are connected to a support plate with which they are continuous, and which is inserted into through-holes; detailed description, paragraphs 2-4; Examiner additionally notes that, under the BRI, the ‘trunk portion’ is not particularly limited, nor is ‘continuous’, and accordingly, the metal foil disclosed by Li being flush with the needle plate would also constitute a trunk portion that is continuous therewith, i.e., electrically), and
wherein the other electrode extends linearly in the second direction (See Figs. 1-4, item 19, which extends linearly in direction parallel to surfaces of substrates).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20050230616 A1), in view of Matthews (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20130026357 A1) and Robinson (DOI: 10.1109/TCE.1961.6373091).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Cameron, in view of Matthews teaches the detector according to Claim 3.
Cameron, in view of Matthews, does not explicitly teach wherein the other electrode has an arc shape, and a center of curvature the other electrode is positioned on the needle-like portion side in the first direction.
Robinson teaches wherein the other electrode has an arc shape (See Fig. 1, collecting electrode), and a center of curvature the other electrode is positioned on the needle-like portion side in the first direction (See above 35 U.S.C. 112(b) interpretation adopted above; See Fig. 1, wherein the center of curvature of the collecting electrode is proximate the tip in the direction of the flow).
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 Cameron, in view of Matthews, to include wherein the other electrode has an arc shape, and a center of curvature the other electrode is positioned on the needle-like portion side in the first direction, as taught by Robinson.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known method in order to achieve predictable results, because Robinson, similar to Matthews discloses a specific embodiment of ionization source electrodes (i.e., a specific reduction to practice for the geometry and relative disposal of the electrodes) that could reasonably be applied by an ordinarily skilled artisan to the arrangement of Cameron as modified by Matthews with a reasonable expectation of success (i.e., in the reduction to practice of the not-particularly-limited ionization source of Cameron), as it amounts to specific prior art disclosed embodiment of a discharge needle-curved plane electrode system (i.e., the geometry thereof) and would allow one, as would be readily recognized by an ordinarily skilled artisan presented with Fig. 1 of Robinson, to provide a more consistent distance between the needle and the collecting electrode, which would naturally create a more consistent discharge between the electrodes.
While Robinson uses such a disposal in the context of increasing the efficiency of flow therethrough, an ordinarily skilled artisan could nevertheless recognize the readily apparent benefits of such an arrangement of electrodes using only their ordinary skill/knowledge, namely, that such a geometry naturally has spherical symmetry between the discharge elements, which naturally allows for the mitigation of fringe effects of using a ring/plate electrode that would be known to an ordinarily skilled artisan. See above discussion regarding the level of an ordinarily skilled artisan.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Xu (US 20040164238 A1);
Zhang (US 20150188295 A1);
Ouyang (CN 105632872 A);
Ross (US 20040079879 A1);
Gorbachev (WO 2008018811 A1);
Chou (US 20110001044 A1);
Wang (US 7326926 B2);
Allsworth (US 10026600 B2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 H 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights