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 on 7/8/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 9, 11-29, 31, 33, and 35 remain pending the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 7/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 11-12 that the substrate of Murphy does not define an inspection area as required in the amended independent claims and that the rejection relies on Murphy’s transparent panel and hollow interior region to satisfy the substrate and interlayer limitations. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this characterization of the previous and current rejection. The previous rejection and the rejection below considers the transparent panel to correspond to the sensor layer, the air of the hollow section to correspond to the interlayer, and the interior section with electronic components to correspond to the substrate as can be seen in the previous rejection and the rejection below.
Applicant argues on page 12-13 that a hollow region is not an interlayer of a stack and that the air in Murphy would not thermally isolate the temperature sensors. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s own specification [0014] [0038] and claims 9 and 35 disclose that the interlayer may comprise air. Additionally, as seen in the previous rejection of claim 31 and the rejection of claim 31 below, the thermal conductivity of air falls within the desired levels recited within the claims and the specification. Accordingly this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant repeats their arguments on pages 13-14. These arguments are not persuasive for the same reasons listed above. Accordingly this argument is not persuasive.
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 14-15 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.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the claims require wherein the array of temperature sensors are provided on a carrier layer. However, claim 1 already requires that the array of temperature sensors be provided on a sensor layer. Therefore, it is unclear how the sensor layer and carrier layer relate. Is this an additional layer? The same layer but with some additional properties of some sort? Something else? The specification provide no further details about the carrier layer other than what is recited in claims 14-15. For examination purposes, a reference disclosing an array of temperature sensors in a layer that is at least partially transparent will be interpreted as meeting the limitations of claims 14 and 15.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 9, 14-15, 20-23, 28-29, 31, 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Murphy et al. (US20190200917, hereafter Murphy).
Regarding claims 1 and 28, Murphy discloses in Figures 1-4 and annotated Figure 5 a method for manufacturing a panel for a skin inspection device and the panel of the skin inspection device (Murphy, Para 83; “Referring to the drawings there is illustrated a skin inspection device 100 for identifying the formation of abnormalities in accordance with the present teaching”), comprising:
the panel defining an area for co-operating with a region of the body under inspection (Murphy, Para 83; “The device 100 comprises a transparent panel 102 which defines an inspection area for co-operating with a region of a body under inspection. For example, the region under inspection may be a foot, a hand, an arm, a leg, etc. In the exemplary arrangement, the region under inspection is a sole of a foot 109 as illustrated in FIG. 2.”), the panel comprising a stack of layers including:
a substrate (bottom portion of interior region 113, see annotated Figure 4);
an array of temperature sensors (array of temperature sensors 105 on transparent panel 102) (Murphy, Para 84-85; “The transparent panel 102 is supported on a housing 106 which accommodates the components of the device 100 therein. The housing 106 comprises a base 111 with side walls 112 extending upwardly therefrom which together define a hollow interior region 113. One or more image capture devices 107 are provided in the hollow interior region 113 for capturing an image of the temperature sensors and an area of skin of the foot 109 in contact with the transparent panel 102. One or more light sources in the form of LEDs 122 may also be located within the hollow interior region 113. Other types of light sources other than LEDS may be used such as cold cathode lamps, electroluminescent coated materials, for example, tapes, panels, wires, xenon or halogen bulbs. A central processing unit 115 is also provided within the hollow interior region 113 and is configured to control the operations of the device 100 as described in detail below. In the exemplary embodiment, the temperature sensors 105 are provided on the transparent panel 102 as printed flexible electronic components.”); and
an interlayer comprising a material that is at least partially transparent and that thermally insulates the temperature sensors from the substrate (air of the top portion of interior region 113, see annotated Figure 4) ([0013] of the instant application and claims 9 and 35 indicate that the interlayer can comprise air) (a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand air to be transparent) (Figure 4 of Murphy shows the arrangement similar to Figure 6 of the instant application);
wherein the array of temperature sensors is provided on a sensor layer (transparent panel 102) (Murphy, Para 84-85; “The transparent panel 102 is supported on a housing 106 which accommodates the components of the device 100 therein. […] the temperature sensors 105 are provided on the transparent panel 102 as printed flexible electronic components), the sensor layer being positioned between the interlayer and the region of the body under inspection, and the interlayer being disposed between the sensor layer and the substrate (Annotated Figure 4 showing the transparent panel 102 between where the foot is placed on the foot plate and the interlayer and the interlayer between the transparent panel 102 and the substrate).
PNG
media_image1.png
1290
2476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 29, Murphy discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 28 as discussed above.
Murphy further discloses wherein the interlayer is at least partially transparent (a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand air to be at least partially transparent).
Regarding claims 9 and 35 Murphy discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 28 as discussed above.
Murphy further discloses wherein the interlayer comprises at least one of the following materials: air (air of the top portion of interior region 113, see annotated Figure 4) (Figure 4 of Murphy shows the arrangement similar to Figure 6 of the instant application).
Regarding claim 14, Murphy discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Murphy further discloses wherein the array of temperature sensors (array of temperature sensors 105) are provided on a carrier layer (transparent panel 102) (Murphy, Para 83; “An array of temperature sensors 105 are provided on the transparent panel 102 which are operable to record the temperature of an area of skin of the foot 109 during inspection.”).
Regarding claim 15, Murphy discloses all of the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above.
Murphy further discloses wherein the carrier layer (transparent panel 102) is at least partially transparent (Murphy, Para 83; “An array of temperature sensors 105 are provided on the transparent panel 102 which are operable to record the temperature of an area of skin of the foot 109 during inspection.”).
Regarding claim 20, Murphy discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Murphy further discloses the skin inspection device of the panel configured to measure at least the temperature of an area of skin of one or more body parts (Murphy, Para 83; “An array of temperature sensors 105 are provided on the transparent panel 102 which are operable to record the temperature of an area of skin of the foot 109 during inspection.”).
Regarding claim 21, Murphy discloses all of the limitations of claim 20 as discussed above.
Murphy further discloses wherein the presence of the interlayer reduces the difference between the actual temperature of the area of skin and the temperature of the area of skin as measured by the skin inspection device (Murphy is interpreted as meeting the limitations in this claim because structurally an air interlayer is described as doing this in [0110] of the specification and because this limitation is interpreted as a recitation of intended result. ).
Regarding claim 22, Murphy discloses all of the limitations of claim 20 as discussed above.
Murphy further discloses herein said device may be configured to allow the calculation of a temperature difference between two or more body parts (Murphy, Figure 7b; showing two different feet to be measured) (Murphy, Para 118; " FIG. 14C also combines temperature data with visual data and can be used to determine if the hotspots are at different locations on the feet. The visual image may be used to confirm that the hot spot sites correspond to different location on the feet. In a contralateral comparison, this would indicate that the temperatures are not normal.").
Regarding claim 23, Murphy discloses all of the limitations of claim 22 as discussed above.
Murphy further discloses wherein the temperature of the ambient environment of said device has no effect on the deduced temperature difference between the two or more body parts (Murphy is interpreted as meeting the limitations in this claim because [0127] of the specification describes that this structure of the device leads to this intended result ).
Regarding claim 31, Murphy discloses all of the limitations of claim 28 as discussed above.
Murphy discloses wherein the interlayer comprises air as discussed above.
The Engineering Toolbox provides evidence that that air has a thermal conductivity k in the range 0.02W/mK to 0.3W/mK (The Engineering Toolbox, Pg 2; 24.35 mW/(m K)).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy and Hoey et al. (US20090149846A1, hereafter Hoey) as evidenced by Fu et al. (Tairan Fu, Jiaqi Tang, Kai Chen, Fan Zhang, Visible, near-infrared and infrared optical properties of silica aerogels, Infrared Physics & Technology, Volume 71, 2015, Pages 121-126, ISSN 1350-4495, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infrared.2015.03.004., hereafter Fu).
Regarding claim 3, Murphy discloses all of the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above.
Murphy does not disclose wherein the interlayer has an optical absorption coefficient between 0.02cm-1 to 0.5cm-1 at a light wavelength of 587nm.
In an analogous medical device field of endeavor Hoey discloses wherein an insulating layer comprises silica aerogel (Hoey, Para 97; “In one embodiment, the insulative region 320 of the wall comprises an aerogel 408 or an aerogel in a sealed insulative region 320 that is under a partial vacuum. Silica aerogels are a common form of aerogel having a very low thermal conductivity ranging from 0.03 W/m·K to 0.004 W/m·K. Other forms of aerogels may be used such as a carbon aerogel, or a combination silica and carbon aerogel”) (Hoey, Para 129; “insulating layer 855 that can comprise a silica aerogel, hollow glass microspheres, air channels or voids having a partial vacuum, or any other insulation materials known in the art”).
The use of the techniques of using a silica aerogel as an insulating layer taught by Hoey in the invention of a temperature sensing panel with an insulating layer would have comprised only application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of insulating the panel with a lightweight efficient material; and similar modifications have previously been held to involve only routine skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murphy wherein the interlayer comprises silica aerogel in order to use a common well understood insulating material as taught by Hoey (Hoey, Para 97 and 129) which is lightweight, durable, mold and water resistance, and space-saving as an insulating material.
Fu provides evidence that silica aerogel has an optical absorption coefficient between 0.02cm-1 to 0.5cm-1 at a light wavelength of 587nm (Fu, Pg 123-126, Measurements, Discussion, and Conclusion).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy and Snellenberg et al. (US20190021649, hereafter Snellenberg).
Regarding claim 11, Murphy discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Murphy does not clearly and explicitly disclose wherein the substrate is of a Young’s Modulus of at least 40GPa to support the weight of an adult.
In an analogous temperature measuring platform field of endeavor Snellenberg discloses wherein a substrate comprises tempered glass to support the weight of an adult (Snellenberg, Para 39; “The platform 401 may be constructed of a strong transparent material such as polycarbonate or tempered glass in order to provide the ability for upward-facing cameras 410 to image the bottoms of the user's feet.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murphy wherein the substrate is of a Young’s Modulus of at least 40GPa to support the weight of an adult in order to provide a sufficiently strong material for the panel while not impeding the sensors of the substrate as taught by Snellenberg (Snellenberg, Para 39).
Structure Glass Design and [0073] of the published specification provide evidence that tempered glass has a Young’s Modulus of 70GPa.
Regarding claim 12, Murphy discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Murphy does not clearly and explicitly disclose wherein the substrate comprises glass.
In an analogous temperature measuring platform field of endeavor Snellenberg discloses wherein a substrate comprises tempered glass (Snellenberg, Para 39; “The platform 401 may be constructed of a strong transparent material such as polycarbonate or tempered glass in order to provide the ability for upward-facing cameras 410 to image the bottoms of the user's feet.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murphy wherein the substrate comprises glass in order to provide a sufficiently strong material for the panel while not impeding the sensors of the substrate as taught by Snellenberg (Snellenberg, Para 39).
Regarding claim 13, Murphy discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Murphy does not clearly and explicitly disclose wherein the substrate comprises tempered glass.
In an analogous temperature measuring platform field of endeavor Snellenberg discloses wherein a substrate comprises tempered glass (Snellenberg, Para 39; “The platform 401 may be constructed of a strong transparent material such as polycarbonate or tempered glass in order to provide the ability for upward-facing cameras 410 to image the bottoms of the user's feet.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murphy wherein the substrate comprises tempered glass in order to provide a sufficiently strong material for the panel while not impeding the sensors of the substrate as taught by Snellenberg (Snellenberg, Para 39).
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy and Wang et al. (US20050232532, hereafter Wang).
Regarding claim 16, Murphy discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Murphy does not clearly and explicitly disclose a pressure-sensitive mechanism.
In an analogous medical device for a patient’s foot field of endeavor Wang discloses a pressure-sensitive mechanism (Wang, Para 32 and 44-46; “The strain response arises due to both physical elongation (corresponding fractional change in grating pitches) and the change in index of refraction n as a result of the photoelastic effect, or due to the temperature dependence of the index of refraction n”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murphy to include a pressure-sensitive mechanism in order to use a high resolution sensor as taught by Wang (Wang, Para 13) which assists in the diagnosis of the sole of the foot.
Regarding claim 17, Murphy as modified by Wang above discloses all of the limitations of claim 16 as discussed above.
Murphy does not clearly and explicitly disclose wherein the pressure-sensitive mechanism comprises a pressure-sensitive layer.
Wang further discloses wherein the pressure-sensitive mechanism comprises a pressure-sensitive layer (Wang, Figure 9) (Wang, Para 32 and 44-46; “map of pressure may be constructed based the wavelength shifts and the deformation of each pressure point is determined by monitoring the shift in Bragg wavelengths λB of the reflected signals with the changes in the measurand in each grating 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, and 116. In our case, the measurand is the strain induced by the load on each grating 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, and 116 […] The strain response arises due to both physical elongation (corresponding fractional change in grating pitches) and the change in index of refraction n as a result of the photoelastic effect, or due to the temperature dependence of the index of refraction n”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murphy wherein the pressure-sensitive mechanism comprises a pressure-sensitive layer in order to use a high resolution sensor as taught by Wang (Wang, Para 13) which assists in the diagnosis of the sole of the foot.
Regarding claim 18, Murphy as modified by Wang above discloses all of the limitations of claim 17 as discussed above.
Murphy does not clearly and explicitly disclose wherein the pressure-sensitive layer comprises photoelastic material.
Wang further discloses wherein the pressure-sensitive layer comprises photoelastic material (Wang, Para 32 and 44-46; “The strain response arises due to both physical elongation (corresponding fractional change in grating pitches) and the change in index of refraction n as a result of the photoelastic effect, or due to the temperature dependence of the index of refraction n”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murphy wherein the pressure-sensitive layer comprises photoelastic material in order to use a high resolution sensor as taught by Wang (Wang, Para 13) which assists in the diagnosis of the sole of the foot.
Regarding claim 19, Murphy as modified by Wang above discloses all of the limitations of claim 18 as discussed above.
Murphy does not clearly and explicitly disclose wherein the photoelastic material has a refractive index which changes with applied pressure.
Wang further discloses wherein the photoelastic material has a refractive index which changes with applied pressure (Wang, Para 32 and 44-46; “The strain response arises due to both physical elongation (corresponding fractional change in grating pitches) and the change in index of refraction n as a result of the photoelastic effect, or due to the temperature dependence of the index of refraction n”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murphy wherein the photoelastic material has a refractive index which changes with applied pressure in order to use a high resolution sensor as taught by Wang (Wang, Para 13) which assists in the diagnosis of the sole of the foot.
Claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy and Saikley et al. (US20040138588, hereafter Saikley) and Liu et al. (US20170035383, hereafter Liu).
Regarding claim 24, Murphy discloses all of the limitations of claim 23 as discussed above.
Murphy does not clearly and explicitly disclose wherein said device is configured to measure the temperature of the ambient environment and prevent temperature measurements if the ambient environment temperature is not within a predetermined range.
In an analogous medical diagnostic device field of endeavor Saikley discloses wherein a device is configured to measure a temperature of the ambient environment (Saikley, Para 101; “The preferred embodiment of integrated device 10 will have a specified operating temperature range, for example between 0 and 40 degrees Celsius [...] device 10 should utilize a temperature sensor […] the device's microprocessor can be configured to sense the ambient temperature”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murphy wherein said device is configured to measure the temperature of the ambient environment in order to avoid unnecessary power usage if the temperature is not within an operating range of the device as taught by Saikley (Saikley, Para 101).
In an analogous medical diagnostic device field of endeavor Liu discloses wherein a device is configured to prevent operation if the ambient environment temperature is not within a predetermined range (Liu, Para 58; “if a detected ambient temperature and/or ambient humidity of the remote exposure control device 20 exceeds a set safe range, the remote exposure control device 20 sends a visible alarm and/or an acoustic alarm, and stops”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murphy wherein said device is configured to prevent temperature measurements if the ambient environment temperature is not within a predetermined range as taught by Liu in order to avoid unnecessary power usage.
Regarding claim 25, Murphy as modified by Saikley and Liu above discloses all of the limitations of claim 24 as discussed above.
Murphy does not clearly and explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined temperature range is 10°C to 40°C.
Saikley further discloses wherein the predetermined temperature range is 10°C to 40°C (Saikley, Para 101; “The preferred embodiment of integrated device 10 will have a specified operating temperature range, for example between 0 and 40 degrees Celsius [...] device 10 should utilize a temperature sensor […] the device's microprocessor can be configured to sense the ambient temperature”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murphy wherein the predetermined temperature range is 10°C to 40°C in order to avoid unnecessary power usage if the temperature is not within an operating range of the device as taught by Saikley (Saikley, Para 101).
Regarding claim 26, Murphy as modified by Saikley and Liu above discloses all of the limitations of claim 24 as discussed above.
Murphy further discloses wherein said device comprises means by which to measure the temperature of the panel (Murphy, Para 98; “The temperature of the panel 102 could potentially impact the temperature of the temperature sensors 105 to give false temperature readings. The temperature sensors will be thermally acted on by the foot 109 as well as the panel 102, with the panel 102 acting to either increase or decrease the sensor temperature as illustrated in FIG. 8. In order to isolate the panel temperature 102 from the sensor temperature it is beneficial to know the temperature of the panel 102 itself. The panel temperature or reference temperature could be recorded in a number of ways. This temperature value would be input into an algorithm which would be applied to the recorded temperature values from the temperature sensors. This algorithm would eliminate the effect of the panel temperature on the recorded sensor temperature.”).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy, Saikley, and Liu as applied to claim 26 above, and in further view of Fried et al. (US20210386296 , hereafter Fried).
Regarding claim 27, Murphy as modified by Saikley and Liu above discloses all of the limitations of claim 26 as discussed above.
Murphy does not clearly and explicitly disclose wherein said device is configured to prevent temperature measurements if the panel temperature is not within a predetermined range.
In an analogous medical device field of endeavor Fried discloses wherein said device is configured to prevent operation if the device’s temperature is not within a predetermined range (Fried Para 110; “a sensor to prevent the over-heating […] such that the diodes are at risk of being damaged”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murphy wherein said device is configured to prevent temperature measurements if the panel temperature is not within a predetermined range in order to prevent damage to the device as taught by Fried (Fried, Para 110).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy and Katz et al. (US20170105627, hereafter Katz).
Regarding claim 33, Murphy discloses all of the limitations of claim 28 as discussed above.
Murphy does not disclose wherein the thickness of the interlayer is in the range 0.05mm to 5mm.
In an analogous temperature measuring medical device field of endeavor Katz discloses wherein a thickness of an insulating layer is in the range 0.05mm to 5mm (Katz, Para 67; “wall 73 that is relatively thick, on the order of 0.5 mm thick, in order to provide the desired thermal insulation”).
The use of the techniques of a 0.5 mm thick insulating layer taught by Katz in the invention of a temperature sensing panel with an insulating layer would have comprised only application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of providing desired insulation; and similar modifications have previously been held to involve only routine skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murphy wherein the thickness of the interlayer is in the range 0.05mm to 5mm in order provide insulation as taught by Katz (Katz, Para 67) while maintaining a small profile of the device.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Li whose telephone number is (313)446-4916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday; 5:30 AM to 3:30 PM Eastern.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/JOHN D LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights