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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 22 December 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-5 and 9-33 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1, 9, 11, 13, 16, 26, 29 and 32 have overcome each and every U.S.C. 112 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 22 September 2025. However, Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1, 9, 11, 13, 16, 26, 29 and 32 do not overcome the U.S.C. 103 rejections nor the objections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 22 December 2025, with respect to the U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-5 and 9-33, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant Remarks
Regarding the IDS, Applicant requests clarification or a correction.
Applicant remarks that the mirrors taught by Kiesel and Fervel have different purposes and are therefore not obviously combinable. Kiesel teaches mirrors in the sensing apparatus that allows entry and exit of light into a channel containing moving liquid. Fervel teaches micromirrors to reflect radiant flux from the sensed observed zone to a camera/spectroscope.
Applicant remarks that combining or swapping placement and structure would be counter to what each reference teaches and suggests, thus rendering the combination unsuitable, if not inoperable. Such a combination would be hindsight.
Applicant agrees that Fervel teaches that micromirrors provide a compact design. Applicant remarks that the device of Fervel, however, allows for directing the radiant flux to different components, with the reduction in size being in relation to other devices that must also direct the flux to multiple components. Therefore, Kiesel would not gain any reduction in size using micromirrors.
Applicant remarks that Fervel does not teach “pairs” because the micromirrors do not form an optical cavity. They do not interact or cooperate in any way.
Applicant remarks that Fervel’s mirrors form a single micromirror, which is not properly considered a plurality of micromirrors.
Applicant remarks that the mirrors taught by Kiesel and Fervel have different purposes and are therefore not obviously combinable.
Regarding claim 7, Applicant remarks that although Kiesel teaches that an optical cavity component can include one or more optical cavities, there is no suggestion that the light is only coupled into a subset of the optical cavities.
Regarding claim 7, Applicant remarks that Kiesel does not disclose that the subset of cavities are selected based on one or more target gas species to be detected by the gas sensing apparatus. Examiner does not mention selecting a specific cavity based on the cavity containing the analyte. Further, even if the cavity was chosen because it contains the analyte, that would mean choosing a subset of cavities based on the location of the analyte, as opposed to choosing based on the target gas species.
Examiner Responses
Regarding the IDS, the NPL cited by the Applicant is not clearly found in the attachments with the author, title, journal, nor page numbers. Examiner respectfully requests a resubmission of the NPL with the necessary identifiers.
Examiner respectfully points out that Fervel was simply provided to show that mirrors can be made at the micrometer scale.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully points out that Fervel was simply provided to show that mirrors can be made at the micrometer scale and thus, the combination is suitable. According to Kiesel col. 5 ln. 19-24, “Some of the photosensing implementations described herein employ structures with one or more dimensions smaller than 1 mm, and various techniques have been proposed for producing such structures. In particular, some techniques for producing such structures are referred to as "microfabrication””. This implies the capability of using micromirrors in the device of Kiesel. Thus, the micromirrors of Fervel are combinable with Kiesel.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Motivation of a compact design is referencing the size of the mirrors, and the device of Kiesel would be compact if micromirrors of Fervel are used. Examiner respectfully points out that Fervel was simply provided to show that mirrors can be made at the micrometer scale and thus, the combination is suitable. Thus, a motivation of combining the two references is for a compact design.
Examiner respectfully points out that Kiesel is relied on to teach two parallel mirrors, with channel 384 being a light-transmission region between them, providing an optical cavity. Kiesel in view of Fervel teaches the mirrors can be comprised of multiple micromirrors. According to Kiesel col. 5 ln. 19-24 (stated in c.), Kiesel can be in the micron scale. According to Kiesel col. 22 ln. 12-16, “the enclosing walls of channel 384 through which light enters and exits could instead be implemented with any other suitable light-transmissive components with inward-facing surfaces that are or can be made reflective, such as by fabrication of appropriate structures on them”.
Thus, the area between each wall is essentially its own micromirror cavity array. Fervel was simply provided to show that mirrors can be made at the micrometer scale.
Examiner respectfully points out that one mirror can just as easily be a plurality of mirrors. Having a plurality of micromirrors would not change how the device of Kiesel in view of Fervel functions. According to Kiesel col. 5 ln. 19-24 (stated in c.), Kiesel can be in the micron scale. From MPEP 2143 I.: Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (b) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (c) use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (d) applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (e) "obvious to try" - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (f) known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (g) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
From MPEP 2144.05 II. B.: (“When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product . . . of ordinary skill and common sense.”); Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Thus, Kiesel in view of Fervel discloses a plurality of micromirrors.
Examiner respectfully points out that Fervel was simply provided to show that mirrors can be made at the micrometer scale.
Examiner respectfully points out that the claim limitations do not require that the light is only coupled into a subset of the optical cavities. Further, from Kiesel col. 8 ln. 23-27, “In typical implementations of optical cavities, two light-reflective components have approximately parallel reflection surfaces and the light-transmissive region is sufficiently uniform that measurements would indicate many reflections of light within the light-transmissive region”. From Kiesel col. 11 ln. 51-55, “Many different types of mirrors and other light-reflective components could be used in an optical cavity device, some of which are described below. Similarly, light-transmissive regions of optical cavities could be implemented in many different ways, some of which are described below”. Thus, Kiesel discloses using multiple cavities.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kiesel col. 7 ln. 44-53 and fig. 7 teaches the optical cavity 204 selected based on it containing the analyte. Kiesel col. 20 ln. 64-65 and col. 21 ln. 1-11 teaches the analyte is a moving fluid such as a liquid, gas or aerosol. The limitation "based on" is interpreted as based on light having an absorption potential relative to the species of gas present. It is understood that if it wasn't "based on" at all, the system of the prior art wouldn't function at all. Therefore, Kiesel teaches the subset of cavities are selected based on one or more target gas species to be detected by the gas sensing apparatus.
Claim Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1 and 32, the second instance of “a subset of the optical cavities” should be corrected to say --the subset of the optical cavities--. The second instance of “one or more optical cavities” should be corrected to say –the one or more optical cavities--.
In claim 9, “a plurality of pairs of micromirrors” should be corrected to say –the plurality of pairs of micromirrors—because the antecedent basis is set forth in claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
547
955
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kiesel Fig. 7
PNG
media_image2.png
814
607
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kiesel Fig. 9
PNG
media_image3.png
556
1505
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kiesel Fig. 10
PNG
media_image3.png
556
1505
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kiesel Fig. 11
PNG
media_image4.png
753
902
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Kiesel Fig. 14
PNG
media_image5.png
735
938
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Kiesel Fig. 15
Claims 1, 4, 5, 9-11, 22, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiesel et al. (US7554673B2), hereinafter Kiesel, in view of Fervel et al. (US 9726600 B2), hereinafter Fervel.
As to claim 1, Kiesel teaches a gas-sensing apparatus (Kiesel col. 20 ln. 64-65; col. 21 ln. 1-11; col. 33 ln. 65-67; the moving fluid such as a liquid, gas or aerosol passes through the device 350 to be photosensed by array 362) comprising:
a test chamber formed in a body (Kiesel col. 21 ln. 1-4; fig. 11; Within channel 384, a moving fluid such as a liquid, gas, or aerosol, represented by arrows 390, carries an object 392, providing analyte-array relative movement), the test chamber comprising a pair of mirrors, one of each pair of mirrors being disposed on the first surface of the body and the other of each pair of mirrors being disposed on a second surface of the body, wherein each pair of mirrors forms a respective optical cavity (Kiesel col. 21 ln. 63-66; fig. 11; Entry and exit light- reflective structures 382 and 394 operate as two parallel mirrors, with channel 384 being a light-transmission region between them, providing an optical cavity. The reflective structures 382 and 394 make up two surfaces of the body of the device 350);
a light inlet arranged to couple light into one or more of the optical cavities (Kiesel col. 20 ln. 64- col. 21 ln. 2; fig. 11; light sources 360 are providing light, represented by arrows 380, which passes through entry glass 352 and through entry light-reflective structure 382 before entering channel 384);
light outlets arranged to receive light from one or more of the optical cavities (Kiesel col. 21 ln. 8-11; fig. 11; analyte-affected output light exits through exit light-reflective structure 394 and is transmitted through exit glass 396 and then transmission structure 398 before being photosensed by array 362);
and a gas inlet configured to allow gas from outside of the apparatus to enter the test chamber (Kiesel col. 20 ln. 46-53; fig. 10; an analyte or a fluid carrying an analyte can enter the optical cavity from inlet 356),
wherein the light inlet is arranged to couple light into a subset of the optical cavities (Kiesel col. 20 ln. 64- col. 21 ln. 2; fig. 11; light sources 360 are providing light, represented by arrows 380, which passes through entry glass 352 and through entry light-reflective structure 382 before entering channel 384),
the subset of optical cavities comprising one or more optical cavities selected based on one or more target gas species to be detected by the gas-sensing apparatus (Kiesel col. 7 ln. 44-53; fig. 7; The subset is described by Kiesel as the optical cavity 204 selected based on it containing the analyte. Col. 20 ln. 64-65; col. 21 ln. 1-11; The analyte is a moving fluid such as a liquid, gas or aerosol. Thus, the subset comprises one or more cavities selected based on the target gas to be sensed)
wherein the light outlet is arranged to receive light from a subset of the optical cavities (Kiesel col. 7 ln. 44-53; fig. 7; The optical cavity structure 202 can include one or more optical cavities, and at least one of the optical cavities 204, i.e. the subset, can contain an analyte which affects the output light. Thus, the input light 222 is coupled into a subset: the optical cavity 204),
the subset of optical cavities comprising one or more optical cavities selected based on one or more target gas species to be detected by the gas-sensing apparatus (Kiesel col. 7 ln. 44-53; fig. 7; The subset is described by Kiesel as the optical cavity 204 selected based on it containing the analyte. Col. 20 ln. 64-65; col. 21 ln. 1-11; The analyte is a moving fluid such as a liquid, gas or aerosol).
However, Kiesel does not explicitly disclose a plurality of pairs of micromirrors.
Fervel, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches a plurality of pairs of micromirrors (Fervel abstract; The device comprises a matrix of micromirrors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiesel to incorporate the teachings of Fervel to include the mirrors are micromirrors; for the advantage of a compact design (Fervel col. 5 ln. 8-11).
As to claim 4, Kiesel teaches wherein the body comprises a first part and a second part (Kiesel fig. 11; The first part of the device 350 is between the light sources 360 and the first mirror 382: the entry glass 352. The second part of the device 350 is between the second mirror 394 and the transmission structure 398: the exit glass 396), the test chamber being formed between the first part and the second part (Kiesel fig. 11; the channel 384 is between the entry glass 352 and exit glass 396), and wherein the first surface is a surface of the first part (Kiesel col. 21 ln. 63-66; fig. 11; the entry glass 352 has a surface of the reflective structure 382, which is therefore a surface of the first part), and the second surface is a surface of the second part (Kiesel col. 21 ln. 63-66; fig. 11; the exit glass 396 has a surface of the reflective structure 394, which is therefore a surface of the second part).
As to claim 5, Kiesel teaches wherein the first part is a first substrate and the second part is a second substrate (Kiesel col. 20 ln. 41-53; fig. 11; entry glass 352 and exit glass 396 have coatings or other structures that function as light-reflective components, and thus are both substrates), and wherein the body further comprises a spacing structure separating the first substrate and the second substrate (Kiesel col. 20 ln. 41-53; fig. 10; the two glasses are separated by spacers 354).
As to claim 9, Kiesel teaches wherein the test chamber comprises a pair of mirrors for each of one or more target gas species to be detected by the gas-sensing apparatus (Kiesel fig. 11; col. 21 ln. 12-14; the pair of mirrors 382, 394 corresponds to the target gas species of object 392 which can be a particle, droplet, or small volume of fluid that can be carried by a fluid or other appropriate substance and that includes an analyte to be analyzed).
However, Kiesel does not explicitly disclose the mirrors are micromirrors; and the test chamber comprises a plurality of pairs of micromirrors.
Fervel, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches the mirrors are micromirrors; and the test chamber comprises a plurality of pairs of micromirrors (Fervel abstract; The device comprises a matrix of micromirrors that are individually steerable between at least two positions. Thus, there are implicitly a plurality of pairs of micromirrors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiesel to incorporate the teachings of Fervel to include the mirrors are micromirrors; and the test chamber comprises a plurality of pairs of micromirrors; for the advantage of a compact design (Fervel col. 5 ln. 8-11) analyzing in a plurality of different spectral bands (Fervel abstract).
As to claim 10, Kiesel does not explicitly disclose wherein the test chamber comprises 2 or more, or 5 or more, or 10 or more pairs of micromirrors for each of the one or more target gas species.
Fervel, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the test chamber comprises 2 or more, or 5 or more, or 10 or more pairs of micromirrors for each of the one or more target gas species (Fervel col. 5 ln. 12-27; The camera 22 has the same number of pixels as there are micromirrors. The camera has 640 by 480 pixels. Thus, there are 10 or more pairs of micromirrors. Also, the gas (singular) is detected by the camera 22. Col. 2 ln. 48-54; The micromirror matrix is used to invalidate or confirm the presence of the gas. Thus, there are 10 or more pairs of micromirrors for the one target gas species).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiesel to incorporate the teachings of Fervel to include wherein the test chamber comprises 2 or more, or 5 or more, or 10 or more pairs of micromirrors for each of the one or more target gas species; for the advantage of analyzing in a plurality of different spectral bands (Fervel abstract).
As to claim 11, Kiesel does not explicitly disclose wherein the gas-sensing apparatus is configured to detect 2 or more, or 5 or more, or 10 or more target gas species.
Fervel, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the gas-sensing apparatus is configured to detect 2 or more, or 5 or more, or 10 or more target gas species (Fervel col. 4 ln. 40-42; With the help of several sets of filters having different absorption lines, it is possible to detect on a continuous basis the presence of a plurality of gases in the zone of space under observation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiesel to incorporate the teachings of Fervel to include wherein the gas-sensing apparatus is configured to detect 2 or more, or 5 or more, or 10 or more target gas species; for the advantage quicker detection (Fervel col. 2 ln. 10-17).
As to claim 22, Kiesel teaches a gas detector (Kiesel fig. 7; col. 15 ln. 50-53; The system 200 wherein the analyte can be photosensed within detector 210) comprising:
the gas-sensing apparatus of claim 1 (Kiesel col. 20 ln. 40-41; The device 350 can be used in an implementation of system 200);
a light emitting system arranged to transmit light into the light inlet of the gas- sensing apparatus (Kiesel col. 15 ln. 1-5; fig. 7; the one or more light sources 220 included within system 200 enters the light inlet of the optical cavity structure 202 as represented by arrow 222 in fig. 7);
and a light detecting system arranged to receive light from the light outlets of the gas- sensing apparatus, wherein the light detecting system is configured to generate a signal representative of the intensity of the received light (Kiesel col. 15 ln. 53-59; The detector 210 may include a photosensing component with one or more photosensitive surfaces at which lateral variation of light is detected. Such as after the light passes through an LVF. The sensing results from detector 210 can be provided to other components within system 200 or to external components, as represented by arrow 212).
As to claim 29, Kiesel teaches a method of detecting presence of a target gas species in an environment (Kiesel col. 31 ln 32-36; col. 33 ln. 63-67; The techniques can be applied for gas sensing, to distinguish objects from environment or background. Col. 33 ln. 54-62; For example, the techniques can be used via an implantable product or in a sophisticated fluidic system), the method comprising:
positioning the gas-sensing apparatus according to claim 1 in the environment such that gasses from the environment enter the test chamber of the apparatus (Kiesel col. 30 ln. 65- col. 31 ln. 7; The manner in which object 756 enters channel 754 and is carried by fluid can be via operation of propulsion components);
inputting a light beam into the one or more optical cavities of the gas-sensing apparatus; detecting the light exiting the one or more optical cavities (Kiesel col. 20 ln. 64- col. 21 ln. 2; fig. 11; light sources 360 are providing light, represented by arrows 380, which passes through entry glass 352 and through entry light-reflective structure 382 before entering channel 384);
and analysing the detected light to determine whether the target gas species is present (Kiesel col. 21 ln. 2-14; Within channel 384, a moving fluid such as a gas carries an object 392 that includes an analyte to be analyzed. The optical characteristics of the object 392 can affect light reflected which is transmitted out of the exit glass 396 before being photosensed by array 362. Thus, implicitly, the status of whether the target gas species is present can be determined).
As to claim 30, Kiesel teaches wherein: analysing the detected light comprises at least one of: determining an amount of light absorbed in the optical cavity; detecting a shift in a resonance frequency of the optical cavity; detecting a change in a ring-down time of the optical cavity; and detecting a change in a linewidth of the optical cavity (Kiesel fig. 14-15; col. 25 ln. 48-62; Information about the absorption information could be obtained from all the channels by the array 470);
and determining whether the target gas species is present is based on at least one of: the amount of light absorbed in the optical cavity; a magnitude of a resonance wavelength shift; a magnitude of the change in the ring -down time; and a magnitude of the change in linewidth (Kiesel col. 21 ln. 2-14; Within channel 384, a moving fluid such as a gas carries an object 392 that includes an analyte to be analyzed. The optical characteristics of the object 392 can affect light reflected which is transmitted out of the exit glass 396 before being photosensed by array 362. Kiesel fig. 14-15; col. 25 ln. 48-62; Information about the absorption information could be obtained from all the channels by the array 470. Thus, implicitly, the status of whether the target gas species is present can be determined based on absorbance).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiesel in view of Fervel, further in view of Ye et al. (US20080074660A1), hereinafter Ye.
As to claim 2, Kiesel in view of Fervel does not explicitly disclose wherein the optical cavity has an optical finesse of at least 10 000, or at least 50 000, or at least 100 000 or at least 250 000, or at least 500 000.
Ye, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the optical cavity has an optical finesse of at least 10 000, or at least 50 000, or at least 100 000 or at least 250 000, or at least 500 000 (Ye [0079]-[0080]; the two mirror cavity has a high finesse of 30,000 or above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiesel in view of Fervel to incorporate the teachings of Ye to include wherein the optical cavity has an optical finesse of at least 10 000, or at least 50 000, or at least 100 000 or at least 250 000, or at least 500 000; for the advantage of increased sensitivity and resolution (Ye [0080]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiesel in view of Fervel, further in view of Thony et al. (US 5892586 A), hereinafter Thony.
As to claim 3, Kiesel in view of Fervel does not explicitly disclose wherein one or both micromirrors of the pair of micromirrors is curved.
Thony, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein one or both micromirrors of the pair of micromirrors is curved (Thony col. 10 ln. 60- col. 11 ln. 3; concave micromirrors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiesel in view of Fervel to incorporate the teachings of Thony to include wherein one or both micromirrors of the pair of micromirrors is curved; for the advantage of stabilizing the cavity, leading to higher efficiency (Thony col. 10 ln. 63- col. 11 ln. 3).
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiesel in view of Fervel, further in view of Ross (US4153837A).
As to claim 12, Kiesel teaches a reference chamber formed in the body (Kiesel fig. 11, 14 and 15; col. 26 ln. 21-30; The reference chambers are described by Kiesel as the reference channels 452 and 456. While the channel 384 in fig. 11 and the channels 450, 454, 458 in fig. 14-15 corresponds to the test chambers), the reference chamber comprising:
one or more pairs of mirrors, each pair of mirrors forming a reference optical cavity (Kiesel fig. 14-15; the pair of light-reflective components 484, 492 and the walls 460 between each channel form individual cavities that make up the channels 450, 452, 454, 456, 458);
a light inlet arranged to couple light into one or more of the reference optical cavities (Kiesel fig. 15; col. 25 ln. 31-40; the entry glass 482 allows the light sources 480 to illuminate channels 450 through 458);
and a light outlet arranged to receive light from one or more of the reference optical cavities (Kiesel fig. 15; col. 25 ln. 31-40; the exit glass 494 receives the light from the channels 450 through 458).
However, Kiesel does not explicitly disclose the mirrors are micromirrors; and wherein the reference cavity is sealed or is sealable from outside gasses.
Fervel, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches the mirrors are micromirrors (Fervel abstract; the device comprises a matrix of micromirrors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiesel to incorporate the teachings of Fervel to include the mirrors are micromirrors; for the advantage of a compact design (Fervel col. 5 ln. 8-11).
Still lacking the limitations such as wherein the reference cavity is sealed or is sealable from outside gasses.
Ross, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the reference chamber is sealed or is sealable from outside gasses (Ross col. 3 ln. 48-50; the reference chamber 64 is sealed at each end by windows 66 that may be epoxied in place).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiesel in view of Fervel to incorporate the teachings of Ross to include wherein the reference chamber is sealed or is sealable from outside gasses; for the advantage of more control over what is permitted to flow therethrough (Ross col. 3 ln. 50-53).
As to claim 13, Kiesel teaches wherein the body comprises a first part and a second part (Kiesel fig. 15; The first part of the device 440 is between the light sources 480 and the first light-reflective structure 484. The second part of the device 440 is between the second light-reflective structure 492 and the transmission structure 490);
wherein the reference chamber is formed between the first part and the second part (Kiesel fig. 15; the reference channels 452 and 456 are formed between the light-reflective structures 484, 492).
As to claim 14, Kiesel in view of Fervel does not explicitly disclose wherein the reference chamber is fillable with one or more reference gas species.
Ross, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the reference chamber is fillable with one or more reference gas species (Ross col. 3 ln. 53-55; The reference chamber 64 may be filled with ambient air or an inert atmosphere).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiesel in view of Fervel to incorporate the teachings of Ross to include wherein the reference chamber is fillable with one or more reference gas species; for the advantage of higher signal-to-noise ratio to maximize the sensitivity of readings (Ross col. 4 ln. 40-44).
As to claim 15, Kiesel teaches wherein the reference chamber comprises a corresponding pair of mirrors for each pair of mirrors in the test chamber (Kiesel fig. 15; each channel 450 through 458 corresponds to the pair of light-reflective components 484, 492).
However, Kiesel does not explicitly disclose the mirrors are micromirrors.
Fervel, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches the mirrors are micromirrors (Fervel abstract; the device comprises a matrix of micromirrors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiesel to incorporate the teachings of Fervel to include the mirrors are micromirrors; for the advantage of a compact design (Fervel col. 5 ln. 8-11).
PNG
media_image6.png
1094
1079
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Trichet Fig. 8
PNG
media_image7.png
656
647
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Trichet Fig. 12
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiesel in view of Fervel, further in view of Ross (US4153837A) and Trichet et al. (US10948397B2), hereinafter Trichet.
As to claim 16, Kiesel does not explicitly disclose wherein a resonant frequency of corresponding pairs of micromirrors in the test chamber and reference chamber is substantially equal.
Fervel, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches the mirrors are micromirrors (Fervel abstract; the device comprises a matrix of micromirrors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiesel to incorporate the teachings of Fervel to include the mirrors are micromirrors; for the advantage of a compact design (Fervel col. 5 ln. 8-11).
Still lacking the limitation such as wherein a resonant frequency of corresponding pairs of mirrors in the test chamber and reference chamber is substantially equal.
Trichet, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein a resonant frequency of corresponding pairs of mirrors in the test chamber and reference chamber is substantially equal (Trichet fig. 8; The trapping cavity 1a (test) and the reference cavity 1b (reference) share a corresponding pair of reflectors 2, 3. Pg. 9 ln. 16-20; Further, it is possible to use an array of plural optical cavities 1 having the same resonant frequency).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiesel in view of Fervel and Ross to incorporate the teachings of Trichet to include wherein a resonant frequency of corresponding pairs of mirrors in the test chamber and reference chamber is substantially equal; for the advantage of enhanced detection of separate optical cavities (Trichet pg. 9 ln. 16-20).
Claims 17-21 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiesel in view of Fervel, further in view of Trichet.
As to claim 17, Kiesel teaches optical cavity tuning system configured to alter the one or more of the optical cavities (Kiesel col. 30 ln. 34-40; the optical cavity can be tuned, e.g. adjusting its shape, which is known in the art to result in altering the resonant frequency).
However, Kiesel in view of Fervel does not explicitly disclose altering the resonant frequency.
Trichet, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches altering the resonant frequency (Trichet pg. 17 ln. 1-7; The speed at which the tuning of the resonance is scanned in system 20 may be limited by the resonant frequency of the measurement actuator 30. Thus, the resonant frequency is tuned, i.e. altered).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiesel in view of Fervel to incorporate the teachings of Trichet to include altering the resonant frequency; for the advantage of increasing the noise rejection bandwidth (Trichet pg. 17 ln. 1-3).
As to claim 18, Kiesel teaches wherein the optical cavity tuning system is configured to change the temperature of the micromirrors and/or the body in order to vary the one or more of the optical cavities (Kiesel col. 18 ln. 26-35; The temperature of the cavity can be adjusted, which is known in the art to result in altering the resonant frequency. Thus, the temperature of the body is changed).
However, Kiesel in view of Fervel does not explicitly disclose varying the resonant frequency.
Trichet, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches varying the resonant frequency (Trichet pg. 17 ln. 1-7; The speed at which the tuning of the resonance is scanned in system 20 may be limited by the resonant frequency of the measurement actuator 30. Thus, the resonant frequency is tuned, i.e. varied).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiesel in view of Fervel to incorporate the teachings of Trichet to include varying the resonant frequency; for the advantage of increasing the noise rejection bandwidth (Trichet pg. 17 ln. 1-3).
As to claim 19, Kiesel in view of Fervel does not explicitly disclose wherein, wherein the micromirrors and/or the body comprise a piezoelectric material, and wherein the optical cavity tuning system is configured to apply a piezoelectric control signal to piezoelectric material in order to vary the resonant frequency of the one or more of the optical cavities.
Trichet, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein, wherein the micromirrors and/or the body comprise a piezoelectric material (Trichet pg. 13 ln. 11-15; fig. 8; A measurement actuator 30 and a control actuator 31 are arranged to relatively move the base 22 and cap 23, and hence the substrates 4, 5. The actuators 30, 31 are piezoelectric actuators. Thus, the body comprises the piezoelectric material),
and wherein the optical cavity tuning system is configured to apply a piezoelectric control signal to piezoelectric material in order to vary the resonant frequency of the one or more of the optical cavities (Trichet pg. 17 ln. 1-7; The speed at which the tuning of the resonance is scanned in system 20 may be limited by the resonant frequency of the measurement actuator 30. Thus, the piezoelectric control signal from the piezoelectric actuator 30 varies the resonant frequency of the optical cavity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiesel in view of Fervel to incorporate the teachings of Trichet to include wherein, wherein the micromirrors and/or the body comprise a piezoelectric material, and wherein the optical cavity tuning system is configured to apply a piezoelectric control signal to piezoelectric material in order to vary the resonant frequency of the one or more of the optical cavities; for the advantage of increasing the noise rejection bandwidth (Trichet pg. 17 ln. 1-3).
As to claim 20, Kiesel in view of Fervel does not explicitly disclose wherein the optical cavity tuning system is arranged to monitor the resonant frequencies of one or more the optical cavities, and to alter the resonant frequency of one or more of the optical cavities based on the monitored resonant frequencies.
Trichet, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the optical cavity tuning system is arranged to monitor the resonant frequencies of one or more the optical cavities (Trichet fig. 12; The resonant frequency for a set of multiple repeated measurements is derived experimentally in fig. 12. Pg. 11 ln. 13-15; The resonances in the different localized regions are detected and tracked as the particles 8 move in the optical cavity 1),
and to alter the resonant frequency of one or more of the optical cavities based on the monitored resonant frequencies (Trichet pg. 4 ln. 7-9; The step of illuminating the optical cavity further comprises tuning through the resonance, so that the at least one measurement of at least one parameter of the excited resonance may be derived by analysis of the output in the time domain. Thus, altering the resonant frequency is described by Trichet as tuning the resonance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiesel in view of Fervel to incorporate the teachings of Trichet to include wherein the optical cavity tuning system is arranged to monitor the resonant frequencies of one or more the optical cavities, and to alter the resonant frequency of one or more of the optical cavities based on the monitored resonant frequencies; for the advantage of allowing characterization of the particle with minimal perturbation to its intrinsic properties (Trichet pg. 3 ln. 19-25).
As to claim 21, Kiesel in view of Fervel does not explicitly disclose wherein the optical cavity or optical cavities are configured to have resonances in the visible to near- infrared electromagnetic ranges.
Trichet, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the optical cavity or optical cavities are configured to have resonances in the visible to near- infrared electromagnetic ranges (Trichet pg. 5 ln. 13-17; pg. 8 ln. 9-15; The light used may be a mixture of wavelengths including visible light (380nm to 740 nm) and infrared light (740nm to 300µm), which includes near- infrared. The optical cavity 1 is illuminated and resonances of an optical mode of the optical cavities that are affected by the individual particles may be excited. Thus, the optical cavity 1 can be configured to have resonances in the visible to near- infrared electromagnetic ranges).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiesel in view of Fervel to incorporate the teachings of Trichet to include wherein the optical cavity or optical cavities are configured to have resonances in the visible to near- infrared electromagnetic ranges; for the advantage of allowing characterization of the particle with minimal perturbation to its intrinsic properties (Trichet pg. 3 ln. 19-25).
As to claim 32, Kiesel teaches a method of providing a gas-sensing apparatus for use in detecting presence of a target gas species (Kiesel col. 31 ln 32-36; col. 33 ln. 63-67; The techniques can be applied for gas sensing, to distinguish objects from environment or background. Col. 20 ln. 64-65; col. 21 ln. 1-11; col. 33 ln. 65-67; the moving fluid such as a liquid, gas or aerosol passes through the device 350 to be photosensed by array 362) the method comprising:
constructing the gas-sensing apparatus by forming a test chamber between a first part and a second part, the test chamber comprising a pair of mirrors, one of each pair of mirrors being disposed on the first part and the other of each pair of mirrors being disposed on the second part (Kiesel fig. 11; The first part of the device 350 is between the light sources 360 and the first mirror 382: the entry glass 352. The second part of the device 350 is between the second mirror 394 and the transmission structure 398: the exit glass 396. Col. 21 ln. 1-4; fig. 11; The test chamber is described by Kiesel as the channel 384, which is between the first part and the second part), wherein each pair of micromirrors forms a respective optical cavity (Kiesel col. 21 ln. 63-66; fig. 11; Entry and exit light- reflective structures 382 and 394 provides an optical cavity);
coupling light into each optical cavity (Kiesel col. 20 ln. 64- col. 21 ln. 2; fig. 11; light sources 360 are providing light, represented by arrows 380, which passes through entry glass 352 and through entry light-reflective structure 382 before entering channel 384);
wherein the light inlet is arranged to couple light into a subset of the optical cavities (Kiesel col. 20 ln. 64- col. 21 ln. 2; fig. 11; light sources 360 are providing light, represented by arrows 380, which passes through entry glass 352 and through entry light-reflective structure 382 before entering channel 384),
the subset of optical cavities comprising one or more optical cavities selected based on one or more target gas species to be detected by the gas-sensing apparatus (Kiesel col. 7 ln. 44-53; fig. 7; The subset is described by Kiesel as the optical cavity 204 selected based on it containing the analyte. Col. 20 ln. 64-65; col. 21 ln. 1-11; The analyte is a moving fluid such as a liquid, gas or aerosol. Thus, the subset comprises one or more cavities selected based on the target gas to be sensed)
wherein the light outlet is arranged to receive light from a subset of the optical cavities (Kiesel col. 7 ln. 44-53; fig. 7; The optical cavity structure 202 can include one or more optical cavities, and at least one of the optical cavities 204, i.e. the subset, can contain an analyte which affects the output light. Thus, the input light 222 is coupled into a subset: the optical cavity 204),
the subset of optical cavities comprising one or more optical cavities selected based on one or more target gas species to be detected by the gas-sensing apparatus (Kiesel col. 7 ln. 44-53; fig. 7; The subset is described by Kiesel as the optical cavity 204 selected based on it containing the analyte. Col. 20 ln. 64-65; col. 21 ln. 1-11; The analyte is a moving fluid such as a liquid, gas or aerosol).
However, Kiesel does not explicitly disclose the mirrors are micromirrors; and the test chamber comprises a plurality of pairs of micromirrors; determine a resonant frequency of each optical cavity; comparing the determined resonance frequencies to the frequency of an absorption peak of the target gas species; selecting one of the plurality of optical cavities based on the comparison of resonance frequencies to the frequency of the absorption peak; and configuring the gas-sensing apparatus to detect light from the selected optical cavity.
Fervel, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches the mirrors are micromirrors; and the test chamber comprises a plurality of pairs of micromirrors (Fervel abstract; The device comprises a matrix of micromirrors that are individually steerable between at least two positions. Thus, there are implicitly a plurality of pairs of micromirrors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiesel to incorporate the teachings of Fervel to include the mirrors are micromirrors; and the test chamber comprises a plurality of pairs of micromirrors; for the advantage of a compact design (Fervel col. 5 ln. 8-11) and analyzing in a plurality of different spectral bands (Fervel abstract).
Still lacking the limitations such as determine a resonant frequency of each optical cavity; comparing the determined resonance frequencies to the frequency of an absorption peak of the target gas species; selecting one of the plurality of optical cavities based on the comparison of resonance frequencies to the frequency of the absorption peak; and configuring the gas-sensing apparatus to detect light from the selected optical cavity.
Trichet, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches determine a resonant frequency of each optical cavity; (Trichet col. 7 ln. 16-18; In a device 10 comprising an array of plural optical cavities 1, the optical cavities 1 may have different resonant frequencies)
comparing the determined resonance frequencies to the frequency of an absorption peak of the target gas species (Trichet col. 10 ln. 11-18; Where plural optical cavities 1 having different resonant frequencies are used, or plural resonances in localised regions having different resonant frequencies are detected, the resonances are separated in frequency (and therefore also in wavelength). This separation provides spatial resolution of the optical cavities 1 by allowing at least one parameter to be derived in respect of each resonance and hence in respect of each particle 8. Col. 17 ln. 48-53; The measures (i.e the at least one parameter) may comprise the optical absorption of the particle 8. Thus, the different resonant frequencies can be compared to the optical absorption of the target particle 8);
selecting one of the plurality of optical cavities based on the comparison of resonance frequencies to the frequency of the absorption peak (Trichet col. 10 ln. 11-18; Where plural optical cavities 1 having different resonant frequencies are used, at least one parameter can be derived in respect of each different particle 8. Thus, the optical cavity that holds the targeted particle 8 is selected);
and configuring the gas-sensing apparatus to detect light from the selected optical cavity (Trichet col. 7 ln. 35-53; the output light from each optical cavity 1 may be detected together or separately by the detector).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiesel in view of Fervel to incorporate the teachings of Trichet to include determine a resonant frequency of each optical cavity; comparing the determined resonance frequencies to the frequency of an absorption peak of the target gas species; selecting one of the plurality of optical cavities based on the comparison of resonance frequencies to the frequency of the absorption peak; and configuring the gas-sensing apparatus to detect light from the selected optical cavity; for the advantage of more design flexibility including providing spatial resolution (Trichet col. 7 ln. 41-45).
As to claim 33, Kiesel teaches calibrating the apparatus for one or more of temperature, pressure, and humidity (col. 26 ln. 30-34; Since reference medium and analyte are moving within the same environment or channel system this also allows compensation for external influences (like temperature, pressure, etc.) that may have a significant influence on optical properties).
PNG
media_image8.png
890
1196
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Deck Fig. 1
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiesel in view of Fervel, further in view of Deck (US10845251B2).
As to claim 23, Kiesel teaches wherein the light emitting system comprises a light source (Kiesel col. 15 ln. 1-5; fig. 7; the one or more light sources 220).
However, Kiesel in view of Fervel does not explicitly disclose wherein the light emitting system comprises an optical fibre, the optical fibre arranged to couple light from the light source into the light inlet.
Deck, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the light emitting system comprises an optical fibre, the optical fibre arranged to couple light from the light source into the light inlet (Deck col. 4 ln. 25-31; The light source 124 can be directed into a number of channels 104 via a fiber distributor 102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiesel in view of Fervel to incorporate the teachings of Deck to include wherein the light emitting system comprises an optical fibre, the optical fibre arranged to couple light from the light source into the light inlet; for the advantage of increasing the number of channels (Deck col. 4 ln. 25-31), thereby allowing for quicker analyses.
As to claim 24, Kiesel in view of Fervel does not explicitly disclose wherein the light detecting system comprises one or more photodiodes and one or more optical fibres, the one or more optical fibres arranged to couple light from the light outlet onto the one or more photodiodes.
Deck, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the light detecting system comprises one or more photodiodes and one or more optical fibres, the one or more optical fibres arranged to couple light from the light outlet onto the one or more photodiodes (Deck fig. 1; col. 5 ln. 6-14; The detection module 110 comprises a plurality of detectors 126 that can be photodiodes. Col. 4 ln. 25-31; Light is coupled into the photodiodes via the fiber distributor 102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiesel in view of Fervel to incorporate the teachings of Deck to include wherein the light detecting system comprises one or more photodiodes and one or more optical fibres, the one or more optical fibres arranged to couple light from the light outlet onto the one or more photodiodes; for the advantage of increasing the number of channels (Deck col. 4 ln. 25-31), thereby allowing for quicker analyses.
As to claim 25, Kiesel teaches wherein the light emitting system and/or light detecting system is incorporated into the gas-sensing apparatus (Kiesel col. 15 ln. 1-5; fig. 7; the one or more light sources 220 is incorporated into the system 200 which senses gas).
Claims 26-28 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiesel in view of Fervel, further in view of Woodford et al. (US20080173065A1), hereinafter Woodford.
As to claim 26, Kiesel teaches a gas detection system (Kiesel fig. 14-15; col. 25 ln. 23-27; a single two-dimensional array 470), wherein the gas detection system is configured to
receive the signal representative of the intensity of the light from the light detection system (Kiesel fig. 14-15; col. 25 ln. 23-27; a single two-dimensional array 470 can obtain sensing results for all the channels),
and to determine absorption information in the gas- sensing apparatus (Kiesel fig. 14-15; col. 25 ln. 48-62; Information about the absorption information could be obtained from all the channels by the array 470, which can include a proportion of light from the light source absorbed).
However, Kiesel in view of Fervel does not explicitly disclose the absorbance information is a proportion of light from the light source absorbed.
Woodford, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches the absorbance information is a proportion of light from the light source absorbed (Woodford [0015]; the sensor output provides raw calibration data which is converted to fractional absorbance: i.e. the proportion of light in the wavelength band of interest which has been absorbed by the target species).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiesel in view of Fervel to incorporate the teachings of Woodford to include the absorbance information is a proportion of light from the light source absorbed; for the advantage of more data for the classification of the behavior and results of the sensor (Woodford [0055]).
As to claim 27, Kiesel in view of Fervel does not explicitly disclose wherein the detection system is configured to determine whether one or more target gasses are present in the test chamber based on the proportion of light absorbed in the light absorbed in the gas- sensing apparatus.
Woodford, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the detection system is configured to determine whether one or more target gasses are present in the test chamber based on the proportion of light absorbed in the light absorbed in the gas- sensing apparatus (Woodford [0074]-[0076]; The fractional absorbance FA (i.e. the proportion of light absorbed) is used to calculate the concentration, i.e. the concentration of the target gas when combined with Kiesel in view of Fervel. The concentration can tell the user whether one or more target gasses are present).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiesel in view of Fervel to incorporate the teachings of Woodford to include wherein the detection system is configured to determine whether one or more target gasses are present in the test chamber based on the proportion of light absorbed in the light absorbed in the gas- sensing apparatus; for the advantage of more data for the classification of the behavior and results of the sensor (Woodford [0055]).
As to claim 28, Kiesel in view of Fervel does not explicitly disclose wherein the detection system is configured to determine a concentration of the one or more target gasses present in the chamber.
Woodford, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the detection system is configured to determine a concentration of the one or more target gasses present in the chamber(Woodford [0074]-[0076]; The fractional absorbance FA (i.e. the proportion of light absorbed) is used to calculate the concentration, i.e. the concentration of the target gas when combined with Kiesel in view of Fervel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiesel in view of Fervel to incorporate the teachings of Woodford to include wherein the detection system is configured to determine a concentration of the one or more target gasses present in the chamber; for the advantage of more data for the classification of the behavior and results of the sensor (Woodford [0055]).
As to claim 31, Kiesel in view of Fervel does not explicitly disclose wherein determining whether the target gas species is present comprises determining a concentration of the target gas present in the test chamber.
Woodford, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein determining whether the target gas species is present comprises determining a concentration of the target gas present in the test chamber (Woodford [0074]-[0076]; The fractional absorbance FA (i.e. the proportion of light absorbed) is used to calculate the concentration, i.e. the concentration of the target gas when combined with Kiesel in view of Fervel. The concentration can tell the user whether one or more target gasses are present).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kiesel in view of Fervel to incorporate the teachings of Woodford to include wherein determining whether the target gas species is present comprises determining a concentration of the target gas present in the test chamber; for the advantage of more data for the classification of the behavior and results of the sensor (Woodford [0055]).
Examiner’s Note
Even if the Examiner were to agree with applicant’s arguments and the current interpretation were to be overcome, the recitation of the structures in fig. 7 and 11 in Kiesel would still clearly teach most if not all of the limitations of instant claims 1 and 32, as obviously two cavities would have two mirror arrays.
Kiesel col. 21 ln. 62-66 states “Entry and exit light- reflective structures 382 and 394 operate as two parallel mirrors, with channel 384 being a light-transmission region between them, providing an optical cavity”.
Further, according to Kiesel col. 5 ln. 19-24, “Some of the photosensing implementations described herein employ structures with one or more dimensions smaller than 1 mm, and various techniques have been proposed for producing such structures. In particular, some techniques for producing such structures are referred to as "microfabrication””. This implies the capability of using micromirrors in the device of Kiesel.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEMAYA NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9078. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 am - 5:00pm ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571) 272-2287. 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.
/KEMAYA NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877