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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed 7/22/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In light of the newly identified prior art, any previous indication of allowability is withdrawn and a rejection based upon this prior art is presented below.
With regard to the arguments on page 18 directed towards the previous 112(d) rejection of Claims 2, 10, and 17,
Applicant argues that Claims 1, 9, and 16 requires that the first receiver coil is formed in at least one metal layer while claims 2, 10, and 17 requires the first receiver coil to be formed in only one metal layer. No further argument is presented.
The Examiner acknowledges the arguments, but respectfully notes that there is a difference in initially claiming “a metal layer” and later claiming “only one metal layer” as opposed to initially claiming “at least one metal layer.” Reciting “at least one” reasonably includes the intended scope of more than one metal layer. This is different than merely reciting “a metal layer” in a claim that could include more layer due to the use of “comprising.” Meaning, the difference here is the clear intent of the scope of include more than one metal layer. For example, it would be reasonable to later claim “the at least one metal layer includes two metal layers,” because “at least one” metal layer does include two (or more) metal layers. It would however not be reasonable to claim “the metal layer includes two metal layers,” as one metal layer is just one layer and would not reasonably include more than one layer. As such, reciting “only one metal layer” raises an issue because it removes any of the other layers that are reasonably included in the scope when reciting “at least one metal layer,” and such a recitation is therefore inconsistent with the claim features of Claims 1, 9, and 16 because it does not include all of the scope already present in these claims. The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees.
Furthermore, Claim 7 expressly states that “the first transmitter coil comprises a set of at least two spiral windings formed on top of each other, one spiral in each layer of said first subset.” Here, the first transmitter coil is expressly claimed to be in plural layers, and thus cannot be in “only one layer” as later recited. The same issue exists in Claim 10.
The terminal disclaimer is acknowledged, and the previous double patenting rejection is withdrawn in view of this disclaimer.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 24 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/10/2026.
As noted by applicant, new Claim 24 recites the subject matter of Claim 6, and Claim 6 is withdrawn as being directed towards a non-elected species. As such, Claim 24 is also withdrawn as being directed towards a non-elected species.
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 3, 11, and 22 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 Claims 3, 11, and 22,
The phrase “the target” on line 8 is indefinite. No target was previously recited, and it is unclear what this phrase is referencing.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2, 10, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As to Claims 2, 10, 17, and 21,
The phrase “the first transmitter coil is formed in only one metal layer, and the first receiver coil is formed in only one metal layer being the same metal layer in which the transmitter coil is formed; or wherein the first transmitter coil is formed in only one metal layer, and the first receiver coil is formed in only one metal layer different from the metal layer in which the transmitter coil is formed” on lines 2-7 fails to include all of the limitations of respective Claims 1, 7, 9 and 16.
Claims 1, 7, 9, and 16 expressly recite “the first receiver coil having a second spiral course with at least three turns formed in a second subset of at least one metal layer selected from said plurality of metal layers” (emphasis added) on lines 1-2 of the second to last paragraph of Claims 1 and 16, lines 15-18 of Claim 7, and lines 1-3 of the second to last paragraph in Claim 9. This paragraph expressly includes the claim scope that the first receiver coil can be formed in more than on metal layer, as the claim expressly recites that the coil is formed in a second subset of “at least one metal layer” selected from the plurality of metal layers. The above claim phrase from Claims 2, 10, and 17 removes this claim scope as it no longer permits the first receiver coil to be formed in more than one metal layer. While such a phrase may further limit the claim, it also removes claim scope that was expressly included in Claims 1, 9, and 16. Adding new claim features or further limiting claim features is permitted (and required in dependent claims), but dependent claims cannot remove claim features that were included in a parent claim.
Furthermore, Claim 7 expressly states that “the first transmitter coil comprises a set of at least two spiral windings formed on top of each other, one spiral in each layer of said first subset.” Here, the first transmitter coil is expressly claimed to be in plural layers, and thus cannot be in “only one layer” as later recited. The same issue exists in Claim 10. Limiting the transmitter coil to be formed “in only one metal layer” as is done in the above claims fails to include all of the features of the respective parent claims, because it eliminates the expressly claimed feature of forming the transmitter coil in plural layers.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 16, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kluge et al. (Kluge) (WO 2019/141854) in view of Matsunaga (US 2007/0024504).
As to Claims 1 and 16,
Kluge discloses A proximity sensor device, comprising: a single semiconductor die (chip 100) comprising a semiconductor substrate having an active surface (top surface of bottom layer), and an interconnection stack on top of the active surface (Page 22, Lines 22-23), (Figures 1, 2d, 2f / note the receiver coils are in their own respective layer, and each have connections such as 121,131 along with the connections 141 for the transmitter coil 140 in Figure 1, which collectively form an interconnection stack); the single semiconductor die comprising at least one component selected from the group consisting of: an active component, a passive component (one of the contacts 105), and a bond pad (Figure 1), (Page 21, Lines 32-33); the interconnection stack comprising a plurality of at least two metal layers separated by isolation layers (Page 22, Lines 22-23), (Figures 1, 2d, 2f / note the receiver coils are in their own respective layer, and the receiver coils must be separated from each other by insulating material or else they would short each other, as such, the layered metal for each coil is interpreted as a metal layer, and the insulation that must exist between the metal layers are the insulation layers); the interconnection stack comprising at least a first transmitter coil (140) and a first receiver coil (120a) (Figures 2d,2f); the first transmitter coil having a first spiral course with at least three turns formed in a first subset of at least one metal layer selected from said plurality of metal layers (Figure 2d / note the layers are stacked), and wherein an orthogonal projection of the first spiral course on the active surface has a first inner periphery and a first outer periphery (Figure 2d); the first receiver coil having a second spiral course with at least three turns formed in a second subset of at least one metal layer selected from said plurality of metal layers (Figures 2d,2f), and wherein an orthogonal projection of the second spiral course on the active surface has a second inner periphery and a second outer periphery (Figure 2f); the second outer periphery being situated inside the first inner periphery (Figures 2d,2f), (Page 27, Lines 6-9 / note the receiver coils of Figure 2d can alternatively have the non-circular shape such as the spiral hexagon shape of Figure 2f), (Page 27, Lines 11-31).
Kluge does not disclose the proximity sensor device / interconnection stack further comprising at least one metal shield in the form of a plurality of at least two tracks located on top of each other in at least two layers of the interconnection stack, said tracks being interconnected by a plurality of vias, said metal shield being located between the spiral windings of the transmitter coil and the spiral windings of the receiver coil.
Matsunaga discloses at least one metal shield (33) in the form of a plurality of at least two tracks (M1-M4) located on top of each other in at least two layers of the interconnection stack (Figures 4,5), said tracks being interconnected by a plurality of vias (V1-V3), said metal shield being located between the spiral windings of the transmitter coil and the spiral windings of the receiver coil (Figures 4,5), (Paragraphs [0055],[0056], [0067]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kluge to include the proximity sensor device / interconnection stack further comprising at least one metal shield in the form of a plurality of at least two tracks located on top of each other in at least two layers of the interconnection stack, said tracks being interconnected by a plurality of vias, said metal shield being located between the spiral windings of the transmitter coil and the spiral windings of the receiver coil given the above disclosure and teaching of Matsunaga in order to advantageously suppress interference between the transmitting coil and receiving coil (Paragraphs [0061],[0064]), and to suppress interference between the transmitting coil and adjacent wiring (Paragraph [0065]).
As to Claims 2 and 17,
Kluge discloses the first transmitter coil is formed in only one metal layer, and the first receiver coil is formed in only one metal layer being the same metal layer in which the transmitter coil is formed; or wherein the first transmitter coil is formed in only one metal layer, and the first receiver coil is formed in only one metal layer different from the metal layer in which the transmitter coil is formed; or wherein the first transmitter coil is formed in the first subset, the first subset containing at least two metal layers; and wherein the first subset and the second subset have at least one metal layer in common (Page 22, Lines 22-23), (Figures 1, 2d, 2f / note the subsets can be defined such that one transmitter coil layer or one coil layer is common to both subsets); or wherein the first transmitter coil is formed in the first subset, the first subset containing at least two metal layers; and wherein the first receiver coil is formed in a second subset of the interconnection stack, the second subset containing at least two metal layers; and wherein the first subset and the second subset have at least one or at least two metal layers in common.
As to Claim 3,
Kluge discloses a transmitter circuit (wires connecting to transmitter coil) comprised in said active surface (Figure 1), and connected to the first transmitter coil (Figure 1), and configured for transmitting an alternating signal (Figure 1 / note the wires can transmit an alternative signal); a receiver circuit (wires connecting to receiver coils) comprised in said active surface (Figure 1), and connected to the first receiver coil (Figure 1), and configured for receiving said alternating signal (Figure 1 / note the wires can transmit/receive an alternating signal); an evaluation circuit (110) comprised in or connected to the receiver circuit (Figure 1), and configured for determining whether the target is in a first predefined position or a second predefined position, and for outputting a corresponding signal or value, or for opening or closing an internal switch between two terminals of the proximity sensor device (Figure 1), (Page 21, Last two lines), (Page 22, Lines 1-3 / note the determination unit (110) is reasonable the device performing position determination, and thus determining the position of the object being detected, and can reasonably output any determination via contacts 105).
As to Claims 5 and 18,
Kluge discloses the substrate further comprises a second receiver coil (another of the receiver coils in the layers) electrically insulated from the first transmitter coil (Page 22, Lines 22-23), (Figures 1, 2d, 2f / note the receiver coils are in their own respective layer, and each must be insulated from the transmitter coil); the second receiver coil having a third spiral course with at least three turns formed in a third subset of at least one or at least two metal layers selected from said plurality of metal layers (Figures 2d,2f), (Page 27, Lines 6-9 / note the receiver coils of Figure 2d can alternatively have the non-circular shape such as the spiral hexagon shape of Figure 2f), (Page 27, Lines 11-31); wherein the first subset and the third subset share at least one metal layer (the subsets can be defined to include a shared layer); and wherein an orthogonal projection of the third spiral course on the active surface is situated completely within the inner periphery of the first transmitter coil (Figures 2d,2f).
As to Claim 8,
Kluge discloses A proximity sensor system comprising: a proximity sensor device according to claim 1 (see the above rejection of Claim 1); and an electrically conductive target or a magnetic target movable along a predefined trajectory relative to the proximity sensor device between a first position and a second position (Page 18, Lines 24-31 / note the target must move between two positions as it is moving).
As to Claim 20,
Kluge discloses A proximity sensor system comprising: a proximity sensor device according to claim 1 (see the above rejection of Claim 1); and an electrically conductive target or a magnetic target movable along a predefined trajectory relative to the proximity sensor device between a first position and a second position (Page 18, Lines 24-31 / note the target must move between two positions as it is moving), the proximity sensor device further comprises: a transmitter circuit (wires connecting to transmitter coil) comprised in said active surface (Figure 1), and connected to the first transmitter coil (Figure 1), and configured for transmitting an alternating signal (Figure 1 / note the wires can transmit an alternative signal); a receiver circuit (wires connecting to receiver coils) comprised in said active surface (Figure 1), and connected to the first receiver coil (Figure 1), and configured for receiving said alternating signal (Figure 1 / note the wires can transmit/receive an alternating signal); an evaluation circuit (110) comprised in or connected to the receiver circuit (Figure 1), and configured for determining whether the target is in a first predefined position or a second predefined position, and for outputting a corresponding signal or value, or for opening or closing an internal switch between two terminals of the proximity sensor device (Figure 1), (Page 21, Last two lines), (Page 22, Lines 1-3 / note the determination unit (110) is reasonable the device performing position determination, and thus determining the position of the
Claims 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 21, 22, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kluge et al. (Kluge) (WO 2019/141854) in view of Zhai (US 2020/0402709).
As to Claims 7 and 9,
Kluge discloses A proximity sensor device, comprising: a single semiconductor die (chip 100) comprising a semiconductor substrate having an active surface (top surface of bottom layer), and an interconnection stack on top of the active surface (Page 22, Lines 22-23), (Figures 1, 2d, 2f / note the receiver coils are in their own respective layer, and each have connections such as 121,131 along with the connections 141 for the transmitter coil 140 in Figure 1, which collectively form an interconnection stack); the single semiconductor die comprising at least one component selected from the group consisting of: an active component, a passive component (one of the contacts 105), and a bond pad (Figure 1), (Page 21, Lines 32-33); the interconnection stack comprising a plurality of at least two metal layers separated by isolation layers (Page 22, Lines 22-23), (Figures 1, 2d, 2f / note the receiver coils are in their own respective layer, and the receiver coils must be separated from each other by insulating material or else they would short each other, as such, the layered metal for each coil is interpreted as a metal layer, and the insulation that must exist between the metal layers are the insulation layers); the interconnection stack comprising at least a first transmitter coil (140) and a first receiver coil (120a) (Figures 2d,2f); the first transmitter coil having a first spiral course with at least three turns formed in a first subset of at least one metal layer selected from said plurality of metal layers (Figure 2d / note the layers are stacked), and wherein an orthogonal projection of the first spiral course on the active surface has a first inner periphery and a first outer periphery (Figure 2d); the first receiver coil having a second spiral course with at least three turns formed in a second subset of at least one metal layer selected from said plurality of metal layers (Figures 2d,2f), and wherein an orthogonal projection of the second spiral course on the active surface has a second inner periphery and a second outer periphery (Figure 2f); the second outer periphery being situated inside the first inner periphery (Figures 2d,2f), (Page 27, Lines 6-9 / note the receiver coils of Figure 2d can alternatively have the non-circular shape such as the spiral hexagon shape of Figure 2f), (Page 27, Lines 11-31).
Kluge does not disclose wherein the first transmitter coil comprises a stack of at least two spiral windings formed on top of each other, one spiral in each layer of said first subset, wherein adjacent spirals are interconnected by means of a plurality of vias which are spaced apart by less than 100 micron, a metal shield being located between the spiral windings of the transmitter coil and the spiral windings of the receiver coil.
Zhai discloses wherein the first transmitter coil (311) comprises a stack of at least two spiral windings (311.1,311.2) formed on top of each other (Figures 3b-3d), (Paragraphs [0037],[0038],[0040]), one spiral in each layer of said first subset (Figures 3b-3d), wherein adjacent spirals are interconnected by means of a plurality of vias (vias for Tx1,Tx2 which are used to connect 311.1 and 311.2 together) which are spaced apart by less than 100 micron (Figure 3b), (Paragraphs [0039],[0043],[0046], / note that because the layer 316 is between 10-100 micrometers and the conductor layers 308,310 have a thickness between 3 and 100 micrometers, the spacing between the vias, such as in the stacked direction, must be less than 100 microns), a metal shield (312) being located between the spiral windings of the transmitter coil (311) and the spiral windings of the receiver coil (321) (Figures 3a-3f), (Paragraph [0037],[0038]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kluge to include the first transmitter coil comprises a stack of at least two spiral windings formed on top of each other, one spiral in each layer of said first subset, wherein adjacent spirals are interconnected by means of a plurality of vias which are spaced apart by less than 100 micron, a metal shield being located between the spiral windings of the transmitter coil and the spiral windings of the receiver coil as taught by Zhai in order to advantageously a more compact transmitter coil that can generate a sufficiently strong magnetic field and thus overcome local noise in a more compact manner by not needing to extend larger lateral distances, and in order to advantageously utilize a configuration in which no common mode capacitance is distributed within an isolation layer between the transmitter and receiver coils, and no common mode or “leakage” current flows across the isolation layer between the transmitter and receiver coils, thus helping to minimize noise.
As to Claims 10 and 21,
Kluge discloses the first transmitter coil is formed in only one metal layer, and the first receiver coil is formed in only one metal layer being the same metal layer in which the transmitter coil is formed; or wherein the first transmitter coil is formed in only one metal layer, and the first receiver coil is formed in only one metal layer different from the metal layer in which the transmitter coil is formed; or wherein the first transmitter coil is formed in the first subset, the first subset containing at least two metal layers; and wherein the first subset and the second subset have at least one metal layer in common (Page 22, Lines 22-23), (Figures 1, 2d, 2f / note the subsets can be defined such that one transmitter coil layer or one coil layer is common to both subsets); or wherein the first transmitter coil is formed in the first subset, the first subset containing at least two metal layers; and wherein the first receiver coil is formed in a second subset of the interconnection stack, the second subset containing at least two metal layers; and wherein the first subset and the second subset have at least one or at least two metal layers in common.
As to Claims 11 and 22,
Kluge discloses a transmitter circuit (wires connecting to transmitter coil) comprised in said active surface (Figure 1), and connected to the first transmitter coil (Figure 1), and configured for transmitting an alternating signal (Figure 1 / note the wires can transmit an alternative signal); a receiver circuit (wires connecting to receiver coils) comprised in said active surface (Figure 1), and connected to the first receiver coil (Figure 1), and configured for receiving said alternating signal (Figure 1 / note the wires can transmit/receive an alternating signal); an evaluation circuit (110) comprised in or connected to the receiver circuit (Figure 1), and configured for determining whether the target is in a first predefined position or a second predefined position, and for outputting a corresponding signal or value, or for opening or closing an internal switch between two terminals of the proximity sensor device (Figure 1), (Page 21, Last two lines), (Page 22, Lines 1-3 / note the determination unit (110) is reasonable the device performing position determination, and thus determining the position of the object being detected, and can reasonably output any determination via contacts 105).
As to Claims 13 and 23,
Kluge discloses the substrate further comprises a second receiver coil (another of the receiver coils in the layers) electrically insulated from the first transmitter coil (Page 22, Lines 22-23), (Figures 1, 2d, 2f / note the receiver coils are in their own respective layer, and each must be insulated from the transmitter coil); the second receiver coil having a third spiral course with at least three turns formed in a third subset of at least one or at least two metal layers selected from said plurality of metal layers (Figures 2d,2f), (Page 27, Lines 6-9 / note the receiver coils of Figure 2d can alternatively have the non-circular shape such as the spiral hexagon shape of Figure 2f), (Page 27, Lines 11-31); wherein the first subset and the third subset share at least one metal layer (the subsets can be defined to include a shared layer); and wherein an orthogonal projection of the third spiral course on the active surface is situated completely within the inner periphery of the first transmitter coil (Figures 2d,2f).
As to Claims 15 and 25,
Kluge discloses A proximity sensor system comprising: a proximity sensor device according to claim 1 (see the above rejection of Claim 1); and an electrically conductive target or a magnetic target movable along a predefined trajectory relative to the proximity sensor device between a first position and a second position (Page 18, Lines 24-31 / note the target must move between two positions as it is moving).
Claim 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kluge et al. (Kluge) (WO 2019/141854) in view of Zhai (US 2020/0402709) as applied to Claim 9 and in further view of Matsunaga (US 2007/0024504).
As to Claim 12,
Kluge in view of Zhai discloses said metal shield being located between the spiral windings of the transmitter coil and the spiral windings of the receiver coil (see the above rejection of Claim 7).
Kluge in view of Zhai does not disclose the proximity sensor device further comprising at least one metal shield in the form of a plurality of at least two tracks located on top of each other in at least two layers of the interconnection stack, said tracks being interconnected by a plurality of vias.
Matsunaga discloses at least one metal shield (33) in the form of a plurality of at least two tracks (M1-M4) located on top of each other in at least two layers of the interconnection stack (Figures 4,5), said tracks being interconnected by a plurality of vias (V1-V3), said metal shield being located between the spiral windings of the transmitter coil and the spiral windings of the receiver coil (Figures 4,5), (Paragraphs [0055],[0056], [0067]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kluge in view of Zhai to include the proximity sensor device further comprising at least one metal shield in the form of a plurality of at least two tracks located on top of each other in at least two layers of the interconnection stack, said tracks being interconnected by a plurality of vias given the above disclosure and teaching of Matsunaga in order to advantageously additionally suppress interference between the transmitting coil and receiving coil (Paragraphs [0061],[0064]), and to suppress interference between the transmitting coil and adjacent wiring (Paragraph [0065]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights