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 .
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 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the sample electrode plate...” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation " the pre-determined area...” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 9-12, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US20130134305A1 [hereinafter Schultz].
Regarding Claim 1, Schultz teaches:
An ion generator (abstract) comprising:
a desorption device configured to desorb sample particles into a pre-determined area (paras. [0010 and 0053]: teaches a UV MALDI (“desorption device”) laser pulse of 349 nm is fired on to the sample, once a sample or analyte is desorbed, a desorption plume (“a pre-determined area,” i.e., a defined region in space containing the desorbed particles) is created, where this desorption plume contains ions, ionized fragments…elemental neutrals, and molecular neutrals);
a light source emitting a light beam and focusing the light beam to the pre-determined area, thereby ionizing, fragmenting or atomizing the sample particles in the pre-determined area (paras. [0010-0011, 0051-0052]: a post-ionization device, e.g., a UV-post-ionization laser, may perform a post-ionization process “by which the species present in the desorption plume area are ionized and/or fragmented,” “a second UV POSTI laser (349 nm) is pulsed into tightly focused volume located 0.2 mm above the surface,” “ a 349nm laser (UV POSTI) is focused and fired into a 100 cubic micron volume at an elevation of 0.3mm above the surface”); and
a focusing reflector for reflecting the light beam that is emitted by the light source and travels through the pre-determined area, and focusing the light beam to the pre-determined area, thereby ionizing, fragmenting or atomizing the sample particles in the pre-determined area at least once again, during which each time the light beam is reflected on the surface of the focusing reflector, the light beam is focused to the pre-determined area correspondingly (paras. [0095, 0097-0098]: teaches “optical multi-passing of lasers” using a “Herriott Optical Cavity,” and describes a grin-injection cavity with “custom coated mirror blanks” in which the laser is “focused into the…plume,” and then “re-collimated, and then re-focused after two bounces within the optical cavity,” enabling “multiple passes” and continually “re-focus[ing] the laser into and out of the neutral plume. As shown in Fig. 17. Schultz’s schematic of the cavity further illustrates two opposing curved mirrors around the plume region through which the beam is repeatedly passed/refocus).
Regarding Claim 9:
Schultz teaches the ion generator according to claim 1. Schultz further teaches wherein the sample particles are ions, neutral particles, or a combination of both (para. [0095]: explicitly discusses ions and neutrals being co-desorbed and then post-ionized (neutral plume)).
Regarding Claim 10:
Schultz teaches the ion generator according to claim 1. Schultz further teaches wherein the desorption device is a laser desorption device, a thermal desorption device, an ultrasonic desorption device, or a combination thereof (abstract: Schultz is built around laser desorption (MALDI laser shot producing neutral plume)).
Regarding Claim 11:
Schultz teaches the ion generator according to claim 1. Schultz further teaches wherein the desorption device is a matrix-assisted laser desorption device (teaches a MALDI-based desorption arrangement, including that a “desorption source (e.g., UV MALDI) impinges the surface” and describes the system as “MALDI-IM-oTOFMS”), and
the pre-determined area is the area adjacent to the sample electrode plate of the matrix-assisted laser desorption device (paras. [0024, 0041, 0051 and 0067]: teaches ionization occurring in a defined volume immediately above the sample, i.e., laser focused and fired into “a small volume a few millimeters above the sample surface” and also “tightly focused volume located 0.2mm above the surface”; also describes the sample “loaded onto the sample plate,” “a standard stainless steel MALDI sample plate” treated with matrix, i.e., the sample electrode plate, and an electrical bias applied between the sample and the entrance to the ion mobility cell, i.e., the sample support/plate is electrically biased and functions as an electrode in the source region), and
traversed by the particle plume of the matrix-assisted laser desorption device (paras. [0009 and 0038]: teaches post-ionization in/through the desorption plume, stating the laser is aligned “to across and focus just above the surface into the rapidly departing...plume” and also characterizes the material being analyzed as the “MALDI desorption plume”).
Regarding Claim 12:
Schultz teaches the ion generator according to claim 1. Schultz further teaches wherein the energy loss caused each time the light beam is reflected and focused by the focusing reflector is less than 10% (Fig. 17 of Schultz labels the mirrors 99.5% (reflectivity), which implies ~0.5% loss per refection, well under 10%).
Regarding Claim 16:
Schultz teaches a mass spectrometer comprising the ion generator according to claim 1 (Figs. 1 and 17, and paras. [0041, 0093, 0095 and 0097]: teaches a mass spectrometer, i.e., a “MALDI-IM-oTOFMS spectrometer,” including an ion source region in which a MALDI desorption event produces ions/neutrals from a sample surface; a post-ionization laser light source positioned to ionize/fragment specifies in the desorption plume volume above the sample surface; and multi-pass laser optics (a Herriot optical cavity) that repeatedly refocuses the laser through the neutral plume).
Regarding Claim 17:
Schultz teaches a method of generating ions (abstract), comprising following steps:
desorbing sample particles into a pre-determined area (paras. [0010 and 004]: teaches desorption from a sample surface producing a plume, stating “a desorption source (e.g., UV MALDI) impinges the surface to create directly desorbed ions…[and] co-desorbed neutral…molecules,” and also that “Once a sample…is desorbed, a desorption plume is created”);
emitting a light beam and focusing the light beam to the pre-determined area, thereby ionizing, fragmenting or atomizing the sample particles in the pre-determined area (paras. [0010 and 0041]: teaches a post-ionization laser impinging into the plume region above the sample surface to ionize (and potentially fragment) plume species, neutrals… into a small volume a few millimeters above the sample surface are ionized by impinging the UV POSTI laser into this small volume, also teaches that post-ionization may include ionization and/or fragmentation);
reflecting the light beam that travels through the pre-determined area (para.[0097]: after the post-ionizing laser is focused into the neutral plume (i.e., the claimed pre-determined area), the light remining after passing through that region is reflected within an optical cavity, “ Once focused into the neutral plume, the remining light is re-collimated, and then re-focused after two bounces within the optical cavity”), and
focusing the light beam to the pre-determined area, thereby ionizing, fragmenting or atomizing the sample particles in the pre-determined area at least once again (paras. [0095 and 0097]:post-ionizing beam is focused into the plume region multiple times, which ionizes neutrals again on subsequent passes, “Optical multi-passing...may increase ion yields from..Posyt-ionization,” accomplished with a Herriott optical cavity, and that te injected laser “wil enter, and be focused into the center of the cavity which has been placed over the neutral plume” enabling “multiple passes of laser light”),
during which each time the light beam is reflected on the surface of the focusing reflector, the light beam is focused to the pre-determined area correspondingly (paras. [0097-0098]:as the beam is reflected (“bounces”) within the cavity (via cavity mirrors/reflectors), the beam is correspondingly re-focused back into the plume region on repeated passes)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz in view of US 20060158644 A1[hereinafter Silver]
Regarding Claim 2:
Schultz taches the ion generator according to claim 1. Schultz further teaches the focusing reflector comprises a first concave mirror arranged opposite to the light source with the pre-determined area therebetween (Fig. 17 and paras. [0096-0097]: a “grin…injected” laser cavity using an “input coupling mirror” of a “stable near concentric optical cavity.” Schultz also teaches the geometric relationship that the post-ionization beam is “focused into the center of the cavity” that is “placed over the neutral plume,” and that the beam is “re-focused after two bounces within the optical cavity,” i.e., the interaction region (“pre-determined area”) is in the cavity’s central region through which the beam repeatedly passes. However, Schultz does not specifically note that the sphere center of the first concave mirror is located in the pre-determined area).
Silver discloses a multiple pass optical cell. Particularly, Silver teaches the focusing reflector comprises a first concave mirror arranged opposite to the light source with the pre-determined area therebetween, and sphere center of the first concave mirror is located in the pre-determined area (para. [0012]: the Herriott cell mirror structure for stable resonator conditions is “two spherical mirrors of equal focal lengths” (stable resonator conditions), that “a collimated or focused laser beam is injected through the center of a hole in one of the mirrors,” and that “the beam is periodically reflected and refocused between these mirrors”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective time of filing, to modify Schultz’s expressly disclosed Herriott multi-pass “stable near concentric/semi-concentric optical cavity” using Silver’s taught Herriott-cell structure of opposed spherical (concave) mirrors that periodically refocus the beam, because Silver provides a known, predicable optical cavity structure that archives the same multi-pass/re-focusing function Schultz seeks for maximizing coupling/retention and repeatedly re-focusing through the plume.
Regarding Claim 3:
Schultz taches the ion generator according to claim 1. Schultz further teaches the focusing reflector comprises a second concave mirror arranged opposite to the first concave mirror with the pre-determined area therebetween (Fig. 17 and paras. [0096-0097]: “grin…injected” laser cavity using an “input coupling mirror” of a “stable near concentric optical cavity.” Schultz also teaches the geometric relationship that the post-ionization beam is “focused into the center of the cavity” that is “placed over the neutral plume,” and that the beam is “re-focused after two bounces within the optical cavity,” i.e., the interaction region (“pre-determined area”) is in the cavity’s central region through which the beam repeatedly passes). However, Schultz does not specifically note that the sphere center of the second concave mirror is located in the pre-determined area.
Silver discloses a multiple pass optical cell. Particularly, Silver teaches the focusing reflector comprises a second concave mirror arranged opposite to the first concave mirror with the pre-determined area therebetween, and sphere center of the second concave mirror is located in the pre-determined area (para. [0012]: the Herriott cell mirror structure for stable resonator conditions is “two spherical mirrors of equal focal lengths” (stable resonator conditions), that “a collimated or focused laser beam is injected through the center of a hole in one of the mirrors,” and that “the beam is periodically reflected and refocused between these mirrors”)
Regarding Claim 4:
Schultz in view of Silver teach the ion generator according to claim 3. Silver further teaches wherein the light beam is repeatedly reflected and focused to the pre-determined area between the first concave mirror and the second concave mirror (para. [0012]: teaches a Herriott cell arrangement where a beam is “periodically reflected and refocused” between two spherical (concave) mirrors).
Regarding Claim 5:
Schultz in view of Silver teach the ion generator according to claim 4. Silver further teaches wherein the light beam is incident on a surface of the first concave mirror adjacently to the edge of the second concave mirror (para. [0012]: Silver teaches that in a Herriott cell, “a collimated or focused laser beam is injected through the center of a hole in one of the mirrors, typically an off-axis location near the mirror edge.” Silver further teaches that the result is a defined “pattern of reflected spots observed on each mirror,” and that “the spots trace out…an ellipse,” i.e., repeated incidence on the mirror surfaces at off-axis locations corresponding to the injected geometry. Silver additionally provides an example showing the “near-edge” nature of the injection location “For a 25-mm radium mirror…[an] input hole…located 20 mm from the center,” which places the injection point (and corresponding spot pattern) close to the mirror periphery/edge).
Regarding Claim 6:
Schultz in view of Silver teach the ion generator according to claim 4. Silver further teaches wherein the second concave mirror has a through hole, and the light beam is incident on the surface of the first concave mirror through the through hole (paras. [0039 and 0042]: teaches mirror-through-hole coupling in a two-mirror multi-pass cavity, including that “injecting the laser beam through a hole in the center of either one of the mirrors,” and explains that, in a conventional Herriott cell arrangement, as the one shown in Fig. 2, a first spherical (concave) mirror includes an entrance hole “through which the laser beam is injected” and the injected beam is “pointed at” the opposing second spherical (concave) mirror and is then periodically reflected between the two mirrors. Accordingly, Silver teaches providing a through hole in one concave mirror (read on the claimed “second concave mirror”) such that the beam passes through the through hole and becomes incident on the surface of the opposing concave mirror (read on the claimed “first concave mirror”).
Claims 7-8 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz in view of Silver, further in view of US 6762405B1 [hereinafter Zhao].
Regarding Claim 7:
Schultz in view of Silver teach the ion generator according to claim 2. The combined reference further teaches injecting post-ionizing laser light into a Herriott-type optical cavity through a commercially available grin lens” and that the laser light “will enter, and be focused into the center of the cavity which has been placed over the neutral plume” (See Schultz para. [0097]). However, Schultz does not specifically note the light source comprises a convex lens. Zhao teaches wherein the light source comprises a convex lens whose focal point is in the pre-determined area (Col. 4, Lls. 34-36; Col. 5, Lls. 34-36: teaches using a convex lens as the focusing system, “for example a plano convex lens,” and further teaches positioning it so “beam 16 strikes the optical center of the lens,” and the translation arrangement so the beam “incidents on lens…at the approximate center,” i.e., using a convex lens to focus the beam to the desired target/spot while keeping alignment stable). It would be obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art to implement Zhao’s explicitly-disclosed convex lens as an alternative to Schultz’s GRIN lens, because both are well-known focusing optics used to place a beam focus at a desired region, and Schultz itself is trying to maximize effective delivery/retention of post-ionizing light in the plume region.
Regarding Claim 8:
The combined reference of Shultz, Silver and Zhao teach the ion generator according to claim 7. Zhao further teaches the convex lens with optical axis (Col. 4, Lls. 34-36; Col. 5, Lls. 34-36: teaches using a convex lens in the laser optical path and centering the beam on that lens, including that the focusing system may be “a convex lens 28”, and that the lens “is located so that beam 16 strikes the optical center of the lens 28,” and further that the system is adjusted to the beam incidents on the lens at the “approximate center.” These techniques correspond to aligning the beam path with the optical centerline (optical axis) of the convex lens.
Silver further teaches a first concave mirror with optical axis (paras. [0037, 0039, and 0054]: teaches a multi-passes reflector/cavity employing concave mirrors having a defined central axis, including that the mirror may have holes located at their centers, and that mirror mounts may include means “for rotating the mirrors about their central axes.” Silver further teaches center-hole coupling, stating that the invention involves “injecting the laser beam through a hole in the center of either one of the mirrors,” and also that “the input hole…is located in the center of [a] mirror.” Accordingly, Silver supports treating the injected beam path as aligned to the mirror’s center/axis when using a center-located hole).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art to align Zhao’s concave focusing lens such that its optical axis is coaxial with the optical axis (central axis) of Silver’s first concave mirror, because Silver’s center-hole/central-axis mirror configuration predictably requires centered alignment of the injected/focused beam to pass through the mirror hole without clipping and to maintain stable cavity propagation, and Zhao expressly teaches centering the beam on the convex lens optical center as an alignment technique. Such coaxial alignment is a routine and predictable optical design choice that improves coupling/alignment consistency, which is consistent with Silver’s goal of simplifying optical alignment.
Regarding Claim 13:
Schultz teaches an ion generator (abstract) comprising:
a matrix-assisted laser desorption device having a sample electrode plate (para. [0067]: a standard stainless steel MALDI sample plate to create an electrical bias between the sample);
a laser light source (para. [0037]: a laser light source for MALDI and a post-ionization laser arrangement where laser light is injected through a lens and focused into defined region over the MALDI neutral plume);
the pre-determined area that is adjacent to the sample electrode plate of the matrix-assisted laser desorption device (paras. [0024, 0041, and 0051]: teaches ionization occurring in a defined volume immediately above the sample, i.e., “a small volume a few millimeters above the sample surface” and also “tightly focused volume located 0.2mm above the surface”; also describes the sample “loaded onto he sample plate,” and an electrical bias applied between the sample and the entrance to the ion mobility cell, i.e., the sample support/plate is electrically biased and functions as an electrode in the source region) and
traversed by the particle plume of the matrix-assisted laser desorption device (paras. [0009 and 0038]: teaches post-ionization in/through the desorption plume, stating the laser is aligned “to cross and focus just above the surface into the rapidly departing...plume” and also characterizes the material being analyzed as the “MALDI desorption plume”).
However, Schultz does not specifically note that a convex lens coaxially arranged with the laser light source, whose focal point is in the pre-determined area; and first concave mirror arranged opposite to the laser light source with the pre-determined area therebetween, whose sphere center is located in the pre-determined area.
Zhao teaches a convex lens coaxially arranged with the laser light source, whose focal point is in the pre-determined area (Col. 4, Lls. 34-36; Col. 5, Lls. 34-36: teaches using a convex lens as the focusing system, “for example a plano convex lens,” and further teaches positioning it so “beam 16 strikes the optical center of the lens,” and the translation arrangement so the beam “incidents on lens…at the approximate center,” i.e., using a convex lens to focus the beam to the desired target/spot while keeping alignment stable).
Silver teaches a first concave mirror arranged opposite to the laser light source with the pre-determined area therebetween, whose sphere center is located in the pre-determined area (para. [0012]: the Herriott cell mirror structure for stable resonator conditions is “two spherical mirrors of equal focal lengths” (stable resonator conditions), that “a collimated or focused laser beam is injected through the center of a hole in one of the mirrors,” and that “the beam is periodically reflected and refocused between these mirrors”)
It would be obvious to an ordinary person of skill in the art to implement Schultz’s MALDI post-ionization arrangement (focused laser interaction in a defined region over/within the MALDI plume) using (i) Zhao’s conventional convex focusing lens alignment technique to deliver a well-defined focused beam to a predetermined interaction region and (ii) Silver’s known Herriott/spherical-mirror cavity structure to provide the concave-mirror multi-pass focusing arrangement. Schultz already teaches the purpose and placement of the interaction region, i.e., focusing laser light into a defined region in/over neutral MALDI plume and repeatedly refocusing through that region; while Zhao proves a predictable way to realize the claimed “first concave mirror” focusing reflector in a Herriott-style stable cavity (spherical/concave mirrors that repeatedly refocus the beam between mirrors). Combining these teachings would have predictably yielded an ion generator that (a) focuses the laser beam into the plume interaction region with stable alignment (Zhao), and (b) uses concave spherical mirrors to repeatedly refocus the beam through the same region (Silver), thereby achieving Schultz’s stated goal of improved coupling/retention and multiple high-fluence passes through the plume with no change in fundamental operating principles.
Regarding Claim 14:
The combined references of Schulze, Silver and Zhao teach the ion generator according to claim 13. Schulze further teaches the MALDI plume “pre-determined area” and a multi-pass optical cavity positioned over that plume. Silver further teaches a second concave mirror arranged opposite to the first concave mirror with the pre-determined area, and the sphere center of the second concave mirror is located in the defined area (para. [0012]: teaches the structural cavity mirror arrangement (two opposed concave/spherical mirrors) used for repeated reflections and refocusing, “the simplest such Herriortt cell consists of two spherical mirrors” and that the “beam is periodically reflected and refocused between these mirrors…after a designated number of passes”). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing, to implement Schultz’s describe Herriott optical cavity (used to repeatedly refocus light through the neutral plume) using Silver’s known Herriott-cell configuration having two opposed spherical/concave mirrors, thereby providing the claimed second concave mirror arrangement, to provide a known and predictable mirror architecture (as taught in Silver) to achieve the multi-pass/refocusing behavior Schultz is trying to achieve in the MALDI plume region.
Regarding Claim 15:
The combined references of Schulze, Silver and Zhao teach the ion generator according to claim 13. Schulze teaches wherein the matrix-assisted laser desorption device for the position control of the desorption laser spots on the sample electrode plate (para. [0041]: teaches the MALDI adsorption context with a sample on a stage/plate and a desorption laser impinging the surface, an “Xy sample stage onto which is affixed… a sample surface,” and a “desorption source (e.g., UV MALDI) impinges the surface,” with an “electrical bias…applied between the sample and the entrance” (supporting the “sample electrode plate” concept)). Zhao further teaches a mirror system for the control of the deflecting angle of the desorption laser (Col. 3, Lls. 19-22, 50-55: teaches “a high reflecting mirror is provided…to direct the focused beam to strike point,” and further explains alignment by setting/adjusting the mirror angle “the angle of reflection for the high reflecting mirror can be determined” and the mirror “can be located at the proper angle to reflect the beam to the strike point,” which “fine adjustment… for final alignment…on target”). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing, to incorporate Zhao’s mirror steering system into Schultz’s MALDI desorption setup to achieve controlled spot placement on the sample plate (especially since Schulz already uses an XY stage and laser impingement where accurate spot location matters), to obtain predictable improvements, i.e., reliable positioning/alignment of the desorption laser spot on the sample plate, using a known technique(adjustable steering mirror) in the same MALDI/laser desorption field.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
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.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881