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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 2, 2026, has been entered.
Amendment
The Response, filed on July 2, 2026, has been received and made of record. In response to the Final Office Action dated January 2, 2026, claims 1 and 11 have been amended, claims 12 and 13 have been cancelled, and claims 18 and 19 have been newly added.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the objection to claims 12 and 13, Applicant has cancelled the claims and provided the subject matter in proper dependent form via new claims 18 and 19. Therefore, the outstanding objection to claims 12 and 13 is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 1-8 and 10, Applicant has amended the claim to delete the material failing to comply with the written description requirement, i.e., “bonded in a fixed roll orientation relative to…” Therefore, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 1-8 and 10 is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-8 and 10, Applicant has amended the claim to delete the indefinite subject matter, i.e., “bonded in a fixed roll orientation relative to…” Therefore, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-8 and 10 is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 1-8 and 11-16, Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
The Examiner notes that the inventive concept relied upon by Applicant in their Remarks to differentiate from and attempt to overcome the current prior art rejection is “permanently fixing” elements together; a concept that is well-known and widely used across almost all disciplines when connecting two or more elements.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 10 and 17, Applicant argues that “[t]he issue is whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Tokiwa's interchangeable, releasable lens mounting system so that the lens unit 12 is glued or welded to the camera main body 11, thereby permanently fixing the relative roll orientation of those components.” (Remarks, p. 9).
In support of Applicant’s position, Applicant asserts “Tokiwa itself explains why glue or epoxy would be inappropriate.” (Remarks, p. 9). Tokiwa is found to discuss a camera main body of a camera system being loaded with a lens unit in a removable manner (e.g., [0043]), and that the lens unit is an interchangeable type of lens selected from predetermined examples (e.g., [0045]). Tokiwa also discusses the lens unit being kept secured on the main body without drop via a locking button and pin (e.g., [0046]). However, Tokiwa has not been found by the Examiner to discuss neither the use nor the appropriateness of glue, epoxy or another adhesive or bonding agent as asserted by Applicant in the Remarks (at p. 9). Therefore, Applicant’s statement is merely an unsupported assertion in relation to the disclosure of Tokiwa.
Applicant then states that that the use of glue, a weld or anything else would defeat the purpose of interchangeability and removability (e.g., Remarks, p. 9). However, Applicant’s focus on the single reference of Tokiwa appears to ignore the motivation presented by the 35 U.S.C. 103 combination and the inherent purpose of glues and adhesives, which is a desire to prevent easy separation once mated; one skilled in the art would be motivated to permanently fix interchangeable elements once a desired combination of elements has been created, via trial and error or by design/intent, in order to prevent any later undesired changes in said combination, and/or would be motivated to do so to create a larger sensor unit that is now less easy to conceal as a singular unit, thus limiting possible theft opportunities, where possible loss of one or both parts may outweigh an owner’s desire for later easy separation. Although the system of Tokiwa allows for interchangeability of elements, this alone does not nor would not prevent securing the combination of elements once via a glue or epoxy once a desired combination was achieved.
Applicant also appears to argue that Tokiwa “teaches away” (Remarks, p. 9, “the releasable bayonet/lock- pin structure would have led one of ordinary skill away from such permanent bonding.”) For the purposes of clarity of record, Applicant is reminded that “teaching away” involves criticizing, discrediting, or otherwise discouraging the solution claimed (in this case, permanently fix interchangeable elements once a desired combination of elements has been created and/or limiting possible theft opportunities by creating a larger sensor unit). See MPEP §2141.02, VI. In light of a lack of criticism, discredit or discouragement by Tokiwa, the reference is not found by the Examiner to “teach away” as asserted by Applicant. Please see MPEP §2141.02, VI.
Finally, Applicant states “even if glue or epoxy were generally known for securing structural elements, the proposed modification would not have been obvious in the context of Tokiwa” and argues that “[t]he modification would change Tokiwa’s principle of operation by converting an interchangeable, removable lens system into a permanently bonded assembly.” (Remarks, p. 9). The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, as to the use of Official Notice, MPEP §2144.03(C) clearly provides "to adequately traverse such a finding, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner's action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art" (emphasis added). Applicant has not been found to provide discussion or argument why the use of a glue or epoxy to secure two structure elements together is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. Therefore, Applicant has failed to adequately traverse the finding as they relate to the use of Official Notice.
Second, the use of glue or expoxy to secure interchangeable elements of Tokiwa into a permanently bonded assembly does not inherently change the principal operation of nor offend the teachings of the system of Tokiwa. Tokiwa expressly provides “an object of the present invention is to provide a camera system in which a lens unit and other elements can be combined with ensured propriety, and such a lens unit and accessory device” (e.g., [0008]). Securing a combination of elements, once a desired and functional combination has been achieved, is still found to provide a camera system in which a lens unit and other elements can be combined and is not found to violate the fundamental teaching of Tokiwa.
Finally, the Examiner presents the position that securing elements together with a glue or epoxy, even elements that are not expressly stated to be permanently connected or that may be originally designed to be interchangeable or removable, is not an unreasonable desire beyond the scope of one skilled in the arts. As stated above, one may be motivated to secure elements to more readily prevent theft by created a larger element, or to secure a combination of elements from disassembly once a desired combination has been determined, or even to secure elements in the event that the original means of interchangeability begins to fail due to wearing/failure/breakage of parts to continue functional use of a system. These are all examples of concepts and motivations that are readily apparent to the uses of glues and epoxies, and as provided in the " KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. decision, "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 not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense" KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In view of at least the above, Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they have not been found persuasive. Further, please see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, supra, which expressly introduce documentary evidence related to permanent fixing of elements.
* * * * * *
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to neither a “process” nor a “machine,” but rather embraces or overlaps two different statutory classes of invention set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101 which is drafted so as to set forth the statutory classes of invention in the alternative only. Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQe2d 1551 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990). Also see 2173.05(p), section Il.
Regarding claims 1-8 and 10, independent claim 1, from which claims 2-8 and 10 depend and inherit all limitations therefrom, is directed to an apparatus (e.g., “a sensor unit”). However, claim 1 is also directed to a method of assembly (e.g., “the sensor part is bonded to the housing such that a roll orientation is permanently fixed relative to the reference feature.”). In light of the above, the claim has not been drafted so as to set forth the statutory classes of invention in the alternative only.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1-8 and 10, independent claim 1, from which claims 2-8 and 10 depend and inherit all limitations therefrom, has been amended to recite "the sensor part is bonded to the housing such that a roll orientation is permanently fixed relative to the reference feature.” Applicant has indicated paragraphs [0041]-[0042] for support from the originally filed specification. Although the original disclosure provides that “the assembly can be fixed in place by suitable means, i.e., adhesive or welding” (e.g., [0042]), the disclosure has not been found to expressly disclose the fixing being “permanently” fixing. Adhesive or welding were only provided as exemplary means to fix, and such an open-ended fixing by suitable means does not necessarily require permanency, such as if fixed in place by tension or pressure or lack of additional interference. Further, the fixing in place by suitable means, i.e., adhesive and welding do not necessarily ensure permanency, and the elements can be unfixed. Support is only found for parts being fixed in place by suitable means, and only specifically lists the means of adhesive or welding. The disclosure has not been found to support the current use of term “permanently”. In view of at least the above, the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 11 and 14-19, independent claim 11, from which claims 14-19 depend and inherit all limitations therefrom, has been amended to recite "permanently fixing a relative roll orientation of the sensor part and the housing by bonding the sensor part to the housing.” Applicant has indicated paragraphs [0041]-[0042] for support from the originally filed specification. Although the original disclosure provides that “the assembly can be fixed in place by suitable means, i.e., adhesive or welding” (e.g., [0042]), the disclosure has not been found to expressly disclose the fixing being “permanently” fixing. Adhesive or welding were only provided as exemplary means to fix, and such an open-ended fixing by suitable means does not necessarily require permanency, such as if fixed in place by tension or pressure or lack of additional interference. Further, the fixing in place by suitable means, i.e., adhesive and welding do not necessarily ensure permanency, and the elements can be unfixed. Support is only found for parts being fixed in place by suitable means, and only specifically lists the means of adhesive or welding. The disclosure has not been found to support the current use of term “permanently”. In view of at least the above, the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Regarding claims 1-8 and 10, independent claim 1, from which claims 2-8 and 10 depend and inherit all limitations therefrom, is directed to an apparatus (e.g., “a sensor unit”). However, claim 1 is also directed to a method of assembly (e.g., “the sensor part is bonded to the housing such that a roll orientation is permanently fixed relative to the reference feature”, i.e., the action of bonding and roll orientation). Absent clarity, one skilled in the art would not be put on fair notice regarding the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter. In light of the above, the claims are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8, 10, 11 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0291842 to Tokiwa et al. (hereinafter “Tokiwa”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0320101 to Lincoln et al. (hereinafter “Lincoln”).
Regarding claim 1, Tokiwa teaches a sensor unit comprising a sensor part (e.g., fig. 1, element 12) including a lens (e.g., fig. 1, element 14; [0044]) and an imager (e.g., fig. 1, element 17; [0044]), and a housing (e.g., fig. 1, element 11) including a reference feature (e.g., fig. 1, this can be element 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, or 26) and an annular surface (e.g., fig. 1, see element 18; [0045-46]), wherein the annular surface is configured to engage with a mating annular surface of the sensor part for relative rotation about a longitudinal axis (e.g., fig. 1; [0045-46]), and the sensor part is bonded to the housing such that a roll orientation is fixed relative to the reference feature (e.g., fig. 1; [0045-46], bonded by either a friction of the bayonet connection or a lock pin mechanism). Tokiwa, however, is not found by the Examiner to express disclose that the sensor part is “permanently fixed” relative to the reference feature (please also see the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112 rejections, supra).
Nevertheless, “permanently fixing” elements together via an adhesive is a well-known and widely used practice across almost all disciplines when connecting two or more elements that one does not wish to become easily separated. For example, Lincoln teaches the concept of permanently fixing two elements together (e.g., figs. 3A and 3B; [0049], using Loctite adhesive). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an adhesive as taught by Lincoln to permanently fix the components as taught by Tokiwa in order to prevent easy separation once mated; one skilled in the art would be motivated to permanently fix interchangeable elements once a desired combination of elements has been created, via trial and error or by design/intent, in order to prevent any later undesired changes in said combination, and/or would be motivated to do so to create a larger sensor unit that is now less easy to conceal as a singular unit, thus limiting possible theft opportunities, where possible loss of one or both parts may outweigh an owner’s desire for later easy separation. "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 not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense" KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Tokiwa and Lincoln teach all the limitations of claim 2 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching the sensor unit further comprising a connector device configured to extend through a wall of the housing (‘842 – e.g., figs. 1 and 2; [0053-54], bayonet contacts), electrically communicate with a terminal portion of the sensor part at one end, and, at another end, being compatible with an external connector (‘842 – e.g., figs. 1 and 2; [0053-54]).
Regarding claim 3, Tokiwa and Lincoln teach all the limitations of claim 3 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 2, supra) including teaching wherein the reference feature is an opening formed through at least one of a closed end or a side wall of the housing (‘842 – e.g., fig. 1), and the reference feature is configured to receive the connector device therethrough (‘842 – e.g., fig. 1; [0045], bayonet feature).
Regarding claim 4, Tokiwa and Lincoln teach all the limitations of claim 4 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 3, supra) including teaching wherein the opening is an elongate arc, and the opening is configured to delimit rotational movement of the connector device extending therethrough (‘842 – e.g., fig. 1; [0045], [0054-55], bayonet functionality).
Regarding claim 5, Tokiwa and Lincoln teach all the limitations of claim 5 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 3, supra) including teaching the sensor unit further comprising a connector cover configured to enclose the connector device and cover the opening (‘842 – e.g., fig. 1, result of connection of external portions radially beyond bayonet).
Regarding claim 6, Tokiwa and Lincoln teach all the limitations of claim 6 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 2, supra) including teaching wherein the connector device is formed in a fixed position relative to the housing and the reference feature is roll adjustable relative to the sensor part (‘842 – e.g., fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Tokiwa and Lincoln teach all the limitations of claim 7 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 6, supra) including teaching wherein the terminal portion includes contacts configured to maintain electrical connection to the reference feature (‘842 – e.g., figs. 1 and 2; [0053-54]).
Regarding claim 8, Tokiwa and Lincoln teach all the limitations of claim 8 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 7, supra) including teaching wherein the contacts are arranged in an arcuate path (‘842 – e.g., fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Tokiwa and Lincoln teach all the limitations of claim 10 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 7, supra) including teaching wherein the sensor part is bonded to the housing by at least one of glue or a weld (‘101 – e.g., figs. 3A and 3B; [0049], teaching the use of permanent Loctite adhesive).
Regarding claim 11, Tokiwa teaches a method of assembling a sensor unit, the method comprising providing a sensor part (e.g., fig. 1, element 12) including a lens (e.g., fig. 1, element 14; [0044]), an imager (e.g., fig. 1, element 17; [0044]), and an annular surface (e.g., fig. 1, associated with element 15; [0045-46]), providing a housing (e.g., fig. 1, element 11), including a reference feature (e.g., fig. 1, this can be element 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, or 26) and a mating annular surface (e.g., fig. 1, see element 18; [0045-46]), wherein the mating annular surface is configured to engage with the annular surface of the sensor part for relative rotation about a longitudinal axis (e.g., fig. 1; [0045-46], bayonet connectivity), engaging the annular surface of the sensor part and the mating annular surface of the housing (e.g., figs. 1 and 2; [0045-46], bayonet connectivity), rotating at least one of the sensor part or the housing to roll adjust the reference feature relative to the sensor part (e.g., figs. 1 and 2; [0045-46], bayonet connectivity), and fixing a relative roll orientation of the sensor part and the housing by bonding the sensor part to the housing (e.g., figs. 1 and 2; [0045-46], bayonet connectivity). Tokiwa, However, has not been found by the Examiner to expressly disclose permanently fixing a relative roll orientation of the sensor part and the housing (please also see the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112 rejections, supra).
Nevertheless, “permanently fixing” elements together via an adhesive is a well-known and widely used practice across almost all disciplines when connecting two or more elements that one does not wish to become easily separated. For example, Lincoln teaches the concept of permanently fixing two elements together (e.g., figs. 3A and 3B; [0049], using Loctite adhesive). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an adhesive as taught by Lincoln to permanently fix the components as taught by Tokiwa in order to prevent easy separation once mated; one skilled in the art would be motivated to do so to create a larger sensor unit that is now less easy to conceal as a singular unit, thus limiting possible theft opportunities, where possible loss of one or both parts may outweigh an owner’s desire for later easy separation, or would be motivated to permanently fix the elements once a desired combination of elements has been created, via trial and error or by design/intent, in order to prevent any later undesired changes in said combination. "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 not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense" KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 14, Tokiwa and Lincoln teach all the limitations of claim 14 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 11, supra) including teaching wherein roll adjustment of the sensor part relative to the reference feature into the relative roll orientation is facilitated by a jig or visual inspection system (‘842 – e.g., [0045-46], absent more specific claim language, the bayonet features can be interpreted as a jig, and/or human connection can be interpreted as a visual inspection system, during connection or via contact functionality).
Regarding claim 15, Tokiwa and Lincoln teach all the limitations of claim 15 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 11, supra) including teaching the method further comprising providing a connector device (‘842 – e.g., fig. 1, element 15), wherein the connector device is configured to extend through a wall of the housing (‘842 – e.g., figs. 1 and 2; [0053-54], via bayonet lugs), electrically communicate with a terminal portion of the sensor part at one end (‘842 – e.g., figs. 1 and 2; [0053-54]), and at another end, be compatible with an external connector (‘842 – e.g., figs. 1 and 2, element 18; [0053-54]).
Regarding claim 16, Tokiwa and Lincoln teach all the limitations of claim 16 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 15, supra) including teaching wherein the reference feature is an opening formed through at least one of a closed end or a side wall of the housing (‘842 – e.g., fig. 1, channel 19; [0044-46]), and the reference feature is configured to receive the connector device therethrough (‘842 – e.g., fig. 1; [0044-46]).
Regarding claim 17, Tokiwa and Lincoln teach all the limitations of claim 17 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 11, supra) including teaching wherein the sensor part is bonded to the housing by at least one of glue or a weld (‘101 – e.g., figs. 3A and 3B; [0049], teaching the use of permanent Loctite adhesive).
Regarding claim 18, Tokiwa and Lincoln teach all the limitations of claim 18 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 16, supra) including teaching the method further comprising providing a connector cover (‘842 – e.g., fig. 1, flat annular portion of element 18, outward of bayonet features, on which element 20 is associated), and engaging the connector cover coaxially with the connector device to cover the opening and bond the connector device to the housing (‘842 – e.g., figs. 1 and 2; [0044-46], bayonet connectivity).
Regarding claim 19, Tokiwa and Lincoln teach all the limitations of claim 19 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 15, supra) including teaching the method further comprising, prior to engaging the annular surface and the mating surface, aligning the terminal portion of the sensor part with the connector device such that electrical engagement is achieved when the sensor part and the external connector are contacted (‘842 – e.g., fig. 1; [0044-46], bayonet connectivity with contacts 16a/36 of fig. 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Non-patent literature entitled “What glue should I use for permanent LEGO construction” cited at https://bricks.stackexchange.com/questions/1037/what-glue-should-i-use-for-permanent-lego-construction teaches the concept of using glue and/or bonding of elements originally designed to be interchangeable to become permanently assembled elements in a desired combination.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0356104 to Thorne et al. teaches a device including a sensor part including a lens and imager, and a housing including a reference feature and an annular surface that is configured to engage with a mating annular surface of the sensor part. The Examiner presents this reference to illustrate the current breadth of the claim language relative to the invention disclosed in the specification of the instant application.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY C VIEAUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7318. The examiner can normally be reached Increased Flex.
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, Lin Ye can be reached at 571-272-7372. 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.
/GARY C VIEAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638
Prosecution Insights