DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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.
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.
Claims 1-14 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.
As to claim 1, the terms/phrases “strongly enough”, “likelihood”, and “being close to 100%” are relative terms/phrases which render the claim indefinite. The terms/phrases are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 2-14 are rejected due to dependence on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 1-3, 5-10, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by the paper Superconducting Digital Electronics for Controlling Quantum Computing Systems by Yoshikawa, hereinafter referred to as Yoshikawa in view of the American Physical Society paper High-fidelity qubit measurement with a microwave-photon counter by Govia et al., hereinafter referred to as Govia.
Referring to claim 1, Yoshikawa discloses an arrangement for reading out states of a plurality of qubits in a quantum computing system, wherein each of said qubits is capable of exhibiting a coherent superposition of two quantum states, and wherein reading out the state of any of said qubits collapses the respective superposition into one of said two quantum states (pg. 217, 1. Introduction; pg. 218, Fig. 1; pg. 221, Fig. 4(b)), wherein the arrangement comprises: a plurality of detectors, each of said detectors having an input and an output, of which said input is controllably couplable to a respective one of said plurality of qubits (pg. 219, Fig. 2; pg. 222, left col., 1st para, AQFP sensors detect microwave or DC signal from qubit with high sensitivity), a superconductive parallel to serial converter having a plurality of parallel inputs and a serial output, of which each of said parallel inputs is coupled to the output of a respective one of said detectors (pg. 219, Fig. 2; pg. 221, Fig. 4(a); pg. 222, left col., last para., an AQFP multiplexer for a hybrid quantum computing system. This multiplexer makes a parallel-to-serial conversion so that many qubit states can be read out from a single output port), and a transmitter coupled to said serial output of the superconductive parallel to the serial converter, said transmitter being configured to transmit a signal obtained at said serial output across a boundary of a cryogenically cooled environment in which said qubits, said detectors, said superconductive parallel to serial converter, and said transmitter are located (pg. 222; An AQFP multiplexer selects one of the qubit signals and sends it to the AQFP controller…connections between the room-temperature and cryogenic environments can be significantly reduced, and the scalability of the quantum computing system can be improved…used for the interface to decrease the number of wires between the room-temperature and cryogenic circuits).
Yoshikawa does not appear to explicitly disclose a threshold detector to qubit coupling in terms of being “strongly enough to make the respective one of said plurality of qubits collapse into a first one or a second one of said two quantum states and to make an output value at the output of the respective threshold detector a single bit with a likelihood of said single bit corresponding to the quantum state to which the qubit collapsed being close to 100%”.
However, in a similar field of endeavor of qubit readout, Govia discloses a threshold detector coupled to a qubit “strongly enough to make the respective one of said plurality of qubits collapse into a first one or a second one of said two quantum states and to make an output value at the output of the respective threshold detector a single bit with a likelihood of said single bit corresponding to the quantum state to which the qubit collapsed being close to 100%” (pg. 1, I. Introduction, “detector as the Josephson photomultiplier (JPM)”; pg. 2, Sec. II.; “the JPM initially occupies the ground state |g⟩. Microwaves that are tuned to the junction resonance induce a transition to the first excited state |e⟩,…there is high probability that absorption of a photon will induce a transition to the continuum. In the absence of resonant photons, there is a small, nonzero probability that the JPM will transition due to quantum tunneling from |g⟩, a dark-count event.”).
Yoshikawa and Govia are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, quantum computing architecture.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Yoshikawa and Govia before him or her, to substitute the readout circuitry of Yoshikawa with the JPM of Govia because Yoshikawa contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of a read out component with another, Govia demonstrated that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable read out architecture.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.I.B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yoshikawa and Govia to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As to claim 2, Yoshikawa discloses said qubits are transmon qubits, the states of which are represented by the momentary amounts of energy stored in the respective transmon qubit (reading the qubit state using single-flux-quantum (SFQ) circuits[7] have been performed up to now[8]–[12]. Recently, the control of a superconducting transom qubit; pg. 217, 1. Introduction; NOTE: “transom” appears to be a typographical error of transmon because “transom qubit” is not a term of art); and while Yoshikawa discloses said detectors are a plurality of pulsed microwave components configured to give one of two possible values at their output, indicative of whether the respective transmon qubit was in its ground state or first excited state (pg. 220-222, 3. Quantum Computing System Controlled by Superconducting Electronics) and teaches the use of Josephson junctions, which can used as a microwave photon counter, Yoshikawa does not appear to explicitly teach threshold detectors as pulsed microwave photon counters.
However, Govia discloses the use of microwave photon counters (pg. 1, I. Introduction, “detector as the Josephson photomultiplier (JPM)”).
The rationale to combine remains as indicated above.
As to claim 3, the combination of Yoshikawa in view of Govia discloses said plurality of pulsed microwave photon counters are Josephson junction based single photon detectors (Govia: pg. 1, I. Introduction, “detector as the Josephson photomultiplier (JPM)”). The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.I.B).
As to claim 5, while Yoshikawa discloses of said plurality of pulsed microwave components comprises a control input for receiving a control signal, and each of said plurality of pulsed microwave components is responsive to a control signal received through its control input by enabling the controllable coupling between it and the respective one of the plurality of qubits (pg. 218-19, Fig. 1, Fig. 2; pg. 220-222, 3. Quantum Computing System Controlled by Superconducting Electronics), Yoshikawa does not appear to explicitly teach pulsed microwave photon counters. However, Govia discloses the use of microwave photon counters (Govia: pg. 1, I. Introduction, “detector as the Josephson photomultiplier (JPM)”). The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.I.B).
As to claim 6, the combination of Yoshikawa in view of Schmitt discloses there are as many of said threshold detectors as there are said qubits (Yoshikawa: pg. 219, Fig. 2; Govia, I. Introduction, “detector as the Josephson photomultiplier (JPM)”).
As to claim 7, the combination of Yoshikawa in view of Schmitt discloses for at least one of said threshold detectors, there is a group of N of said qubits, where N is an integer, and the arrangement comprises readout control means configured to controllably couple such that at least one of said threshold detectors with a selected one of the group of N of said qubits (Yoshikawa: pg. 219, Fig. 2; Govia, I. Introduction, “detector as the Josephson photomultiplier (JPM)”).
As to claim 8, Yoshikawa discloses N is equal to or smaller than 5 (pg. 219, Fig. 2).
As to claim 9, Yoshikawa discloses said superconductive parallel to serial converter comprises single flux quantum (later SFQ) based classical logic (pg. 218, 2.1 SFQ Circuits, Fig. 1; pg. 222).
As to claim 10, Yoshikawa discloses said superconductive parallel to serial converter comprises a chain of logic cells coupled in series, each logic cell in said chain of logic cells being configured to temporarily store a piece of digital information obtained from a respective one of said plurality of threshold detectors (Yoshikawa: pg. 221, Fig. 4(a); Govia, I. Introduction, “detector as the Josephson photomultiplier (JPM)”).
Referring to claim 15, Yoshikawa discloses a method for reading out states of a plurality of qubits in a quantum computing system, wherein said reading out involves collapsing a coherent superposition of two quantum states exhibited by the respective qubit into one of said two quantum states (pg. 217, 1. Introduction; pg. 218, Fig. 1; pg. 221, Fig. 4(b)), the method comprising: controllably establishing readout couplings between said plurality of qubits and a plurality of detectors simultaneously (pg. 219, Fig. 2; pg. 222, left col., 1st para, AQFP sensors detect microwave or DC signal from qubit with high sensitivity), thus making each of said plurality of detectors assume one of two possible output values indicative of whether reading out the respective qubit made it collapse into a first one or a second one of said two quantum states, and subsequently transferring the values assumed by said plurality of detectors out of said plurality of threshold detectors as a digital string (pg. 219, Fig. 2; pg. 221, Fig. 4(a); pg. 222, left col., last para., an AQFP multiplexer for a hybrid quantum computing system. This multiplexer makes a parallel-to-serial conversion so that many qubit states can be read out from a single output port), and transmitting said digital string out of the cryogenically cooled environment that contains said qubits and said detectors (pg. 222; An AQFP multiplexer selects one of the qubit signals and sends it to the AQFP controller…connections between the room-temperature and cryogenic environments can be significantly reduced, and the scalability of the quantum computing system can be improved…used for the interface to decrease the number of wires between the room-temperature and cryogenic circuits).
While Yoshikawa teaches the quantum state is determine by a readout circuitry, the specific “threshold detector” is not described.
However, in a similar field of endeavor of qubit readout, Govia discloses a threshold detector (pg. 1, I. Introduction, “detector as the Josephson photomultiplier (JPM)”; pg. 2, Sec. II.; “the JPM initially occupies the ground state |g⟩. Microwaves that are tuned to the junction resonance induce a transition to the first excited state |e⟩,…there is high probability that absorption of a photon will induce a transition to the continuum. In the absence of resonant photons, there is a small, nonzero probability that the JPM will transition due to quantum tunneling from |g⟩, a dark-count event.”)
Yoshikawa and Govia are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, quantum computing architecture.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Yoshikawa and Govia before him or her, to substitute the readout circuitry of Yoshikawa with the JBA of Schmitt because Yoshikawa contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of a read out component with another, Govia demonstrated that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable read out architecture.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.I.B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yoshikawa and Govia to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As to claim 16, the combination of Yoshikawa in view of Govia discloses establishing of readout couplings is performed by controllably setting each of a plurality of pulsed microwave photon counters into resonance with a respective one of said plurality of qubits (Yoshikawa: pg. 218-19, Fig. 1, Fig. 2; pg. 220-222, 3. Quantum Computing System Controlled by Superconducting Electronics; Govia: pg. 1-2, Sec. I and II). The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.I.B).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa in view of Govia, as applied to claims 1-3, 5-10, and 15-16 above, further in view of the article Graphene-based Josephson junction microwave bolometer by Gil-Ho Lee et al., hereinafter referred to as Lee.
As to claim 4, while Yoshikawa in view of Govia discloses said plurality of pulsed microwave photon counters, the combination does not appear to explicitly disclose them as bolometers.
However, Lee discloses bolometers (pg. 42).
Yoshikawa, Govia, and Lee are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, quantum computing architecture.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Yoshikawa, Govia, and Lee before him or her, to substitute the readout circuitry of Yoshikawa in view of Govia with the bolometer technology of Lee because Yoshikawa in view of Govia contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device with the substitution of a bolometer, Lee demonstrated that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable read out architecture.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.I.B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yoshikawa, Govia, and Lee to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa in view of Govia, as applied to claims 1-3, 5-10, and 15-16 above, further in view of the All About Circuits textbook Chapter 12 Shift Registers: Parallel-in, Serial-out (PISO) Conversion, hereinafter referred to as All About Circuits.
As to claim 11, while Yoshikawa discloses said threshold detectors are a plurality of pulsed microwave components (pg. 220-222, 3. Quantum Computing System Controlled by Superconducting Electronics) and teaches the use of Josephson junctions, which can be used as a microwave photon counter, Yoshikawa does not appear to explicitly teach pulsed microwave photon counters.
Additionally, while Yoshikawa discloses each logic cell in said chain of logic cells comprises: a data input coupled to the output of a respective one of said plurality of pulsed microwave components (pg. 221, Fig. 4(a), respective D1-D4 outputs to inputs), a transfer input and a transfer output, a register element coupled to said data input, said transfer input, and said transfer output (Fig. 4(a), gates in chain have two inputs and an output), , and wherein each logic cell in said chain of logic cells is configured to temporarily store in said register element a value obtained either from said data input or from said transfer input (fig. 4(a) and 4(b)), Yoshikawa does not appear to explicitly teach the chain of logic cells controlled by a control input and control value received at said control input.
However, Govia discloses the use of microwave photon counters (pg. 1, I. Introduction, “detector as the Josephson photomultiplier (JPM)”).
Furthermore, the architecture of each logic cell in said chain of logic cells comprises: a data input coupled to the output of a respective one of said plurality of pulsed microwave photon counters, a transfer input and a transfer output, a register element coupled to said data input, said transfer input, and said transfer output, and a control input, and wherein each logic cell in said chain of logic cells is configured to temporarily store in said register element a value obtained either from said data input or from said transfer input, depending on a control value received at said control input is representative of a Parallel-In Serial -Out shift register, which were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as demonstrated by the prior art of the Textbook of All About Circuits.
Yoshikawa, Govia, and All About Circuits are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, computing architecture.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Yoshikawa, Govia, and All About Circuits before him or her, to substitute the readout circuitry and serial data circuitry of Yoshikawa with the microwave photon counter of Govia and the PISO of All About Circuits because Yoshikawa contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of a output circuitry with another (i.e., microwave photon counter and PISO), Govia and All About Circuits demonstrated that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable read out architecture.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.I.B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yoshikawa, Govia, and All About Circuits to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As to claim 17, the combination of Yoshikawa in view of Govia discloses said transferring out of the values assumed by the plurality of threshold detectors involves reading them out in serial form that constitutes said digital string,
The combination does not appear to explicitly disclose storing said values into a shift register and reading them out of said shift register in serial form that constitutes said digital string.
However, the Textbook of All About Circuits demonstrates storing said values into a shift register and reading them out of said shift register in serial form that constitutes said digital string.
Yoshikawa, Govia, and All About Circuits are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, computing architecture.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Yoshikawa, Govia, and All About Circuits before him or her, to substitute the readout circuitry and serial data circuitry of Yoshikawa in view of Govia with the PISO of All About Circuits because Yoshikawa in view of Govia contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of a output circuitry with another, All About Circuits demonstrated that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable read out architecture.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.I.B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yoshikawa, Govia, and All About Circuits to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa in view of Govia, as applied to claims 1-3, 5-10, and 15-16 above, further in view of Tarhani et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0256139), hereinafter referred to as Tarhani.
As to claims 12 and 18, Yoshikawa discloses said transmitter comprises a microwave transducer configured to transmit said signal obtained at said serial output (pg. 222).
The combination of Yoshikawa in view of Govia does not appear to explicitly disclose a vacuum tube waveguide.
However, Tarhani discloses a vacuum tube waveguide ([0002], [0020]).
Yoshikawa, Govia, and Tarhani are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, signal detection and transmission.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Yoshikawa, Govia, and Tarhani before him or her, to substitute the readout transmission circuitry of Yoshikawa with the waveguide technology of Tarhani because Yoshikawa contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device with the substitution of a vacuum tube waveguide, Tarhani demonstrated that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable readout transmission architecture.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.I.B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yoshikawa, Govia, and Tarhani to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa in view of Govia, as applied to claims 1-3, 5-10, and 15-16 above, further in view of Morf et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0139805), hereinafter referred to as Morf.
As to claims 13 and 19, Yoshikawa discloses said transmitter comprises a transmitter configured to transmit said signal obtained at said serial output into a connection (pg. 222).
The combination of Yoshikawa in view of Govia does not appear to explicitly disclose an optical transmitter and optical fibre connection.
However, Morf discloses an optical transmitter and optical fibre connection ([0055], [0097], [0106], [0119-0120] [0175-0176]).
Yoshikawa, Govia, and Morf are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, quantum computing architecture.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Yoshikawa, Govia, and Morf before him or her, to substitute the readout transmission circuitry of Yoshikawa in view of Govia with the optical transmission technology of Morf because Yoshikawa contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device with the substitution of optical transmission circuitry, Morf demonstrated that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable readout transmission architecture.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.I.B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yoshikawa, Govia, and Morf to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa in view of Govia, as applied to claims 1-3, 5-10, and 15-16 above, further in view of the Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art, hereinafter referred to as the AAPA.
As to claim 14, Yoshikawa discloses a quantum computing system, comprising: a cryogenically cooled environment, and an arrangement according to claim 1, located within said cryogenically cooled environment (pg. 217, 1. Introduction; pg. 222).
While Yoshikawa discloses a cryogenically cooled environment, Yoshikawa is silent regarding the specific technology implementing the cryogenically cooled environment and therefore does not appear to explicitly disclose a cryostat.
However, in the Background of the Invention section of the Specification, the AAPA teaches cryostats are known as technology employed to maintain a cryogenically cooled environment (pg. 2, lines 25-30).
Yoshikawa, Govia, and the AAPA are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, quantum computing architecture.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Yoshikawa, Govia, and the AAPA before him or her, to substitute the anticipated a cryogenically cooled environment of Yoshikawa with the cryostat of the AAPA because Yoshikawa contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the employing of a specific cryogenically cooled environment architecture, the AAPA demonstrated that the substituted component and its function was known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable readout transmission architecture.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.I.B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yoshikawa, Govia, and the AAPA to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments entered 6/2/2026 with the filed RCE have been fully considered but moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The American Physical Society paper Multiplexed readout of transmon qubits with Josephson bifurcation amplifiers by V. Schmitt et al. teaches the readout of qubit states using a variant of readout circuitry functioning as a threshold detector.
The examiner has cited particular column, line, and/or paragraph numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in its entirety as potentially teaching of all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c).
Applicants seeking an interview with the examiner, including WebEx Video Conferencing, are encouraged to fill out the online Automated Interview Request (AIR) form (http://www.uspto.gov/patent/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html). See MPEP §502.03, §713.01(11) and Interview Practice for additional details.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T OBERLY whose telephone number is (571)272-6991. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 800am-430pm (MT).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dr. Henry Tsai can be reached on (571) 272-4176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. For more information about the Patent Center, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/. Should you have questions on access to the Patent Center system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC T OBERLY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184
Prosecution Insights