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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “…decrease said tunneling rate among while maintaining said detuning energy” which appears to incomplete, should be “…decrease said tunneling rate among said at least two tweezers while maintaining said detuning energy.”
Claim 6 recites “…said controller is configured control...” should be “…said controller is configured to control…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Florshaim, Y., et al., “Spatial adiabatic passage of ultracold atoms in optical tweezers”, (2023 May) [hereinafter Florshaim].
Regarding Claim 1:
Florshaim teaches an atomic interferometer system (a system of “spatial adiabatic passage of a few fermionic atoms between three micro-optical traps (‘optical tweezers’)”), comprising:
a plurality of optical tweezers each being configured to trap at least one atom therein (“a single optical tweezer is turned on, overlapping with the Fermi gas. It is loaded with approximately 500 atoms per spin state”);
an atom source system configured to release atoms (“
K
40
atoms are dispensed in a separate glass chamber…where they are collected and guided into the main chamber using a 2D magneto-optical trap (MOT)”);
a controller configured to control said optical tweezers to trap at least one atom released by said atom source system in one of said tweezers (“The position and intensity of each tweezer can be dynamically controlled by adjusting the RF drive of the AOD”),
to spatially split a wave function of said trapped atom between at least two of said tweezers, and to at least partially recombine said split atomic wave function in at least one of said tweezers (“we first prepare one tweezer with a small number of atoms… Subsequently, we gradually turn on a second empty tweezer at a distance of d0 over a duration of 0.5 ms. After a certain waiting time ∆t, we move the traps away from each other to a distance of 40 µm to terminate the tunneling”); and
a measuring system, configured to measure wavefunction population in each of said tweezers and to display an output pertaining to said wavefunction populations (“then measure the relative population using fluorescence imaging. An example of such a measurement, taken at a distance of d0 = 1.5 µm, is shown in Fig. 2a”).
Regarding Claim 2:
Florshaim teaches an atomic interferometer system of claim 1. Florshaim further teaches wherein each of said splitting and said recombination is adiabatic (“we have successfully demonstrated the spatial adiabatic transfer of ultracold fermionic atoms between three optical tweezers”).
Regarding Claim 10:
Florshaim teaches an atomic interferometer system of claim 1. Florshaim further teaches wherein said atoms are alkali group atoms (
K
40
is an alkali group atoms).
Regarding Claim 11:
Florshaim teaches an atomic interferometer system of claim 1. Florshaim further teaches wherein said atoms are alkaline metal group atoms (
K
40
(Potassium) belongs to the alkali metal group).
Regarding Claim 12:
Florshaim teaches an atomic interferometer system of claim 1. Florshaim further teaches wherein at least one of said tweezers has a waist of less than 10 mm in diameter (“All tweezers possess…a Gaussian waist of 1.15 µm”).
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 1-2, 6, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20240346352A1 [hereinafter Bluvstein] in view of Menchon-Enrich, R., et al., (2014). Single-atom interferometer based on two-dimensional spatial adiabatic passage. Physical Review A, 89(5) [hereinafter Menchon]
Regarding Claim 1:
Bluvstein teaches an atomic interferometer system (a neutral-atom optical tweezer quantum information system), comprising:
a plurality of optical tweezers each being configured to trap at least one atom therein (para. [0122]: “87Rb atoms are loaded from a magneto-optical trap into a backbone array of programmable optical tweezers generated by a spatial light modulator (SLM)”);
an atom source system configured to release atoms (para. [0184]: “The 2D array of optical tweezers is overlapped with a cloud of laser-cooled atoms in a magneto-optical trap (MOT) …single atoms are loaded from the MOT”);
a controller configured to control said optical tweezers to trap at least one atom released by said atom source system in one of said tweezers (para. [0188]: “an optical tweezer array is created using a liquid crystal on silicon spatial light modulator (SLM), which can programmatically create flexible arrangements of tweezers. These tweezers are fixed in space for a given experimental sequence and loaded stochastically with individual atoms”),
a measuring system, configured to measure wavefunction population in each of said tweezers and to display an output pertaining to said wavefunction populations (para. [0080]: “the state of the particles can be read out in order to observe the result of the quantum circuit…an electron-multiplied CCD (EMCCD) camera image to detect particles' loaded positions, and a second camera image to read out the particles' final states by, for example, detecting fluorescence emitted by the particles in their final states”).
Bluvstein teaches “a single AOD trap can be steered to overlap with any SLM trap,” and atoms can be transferred between AOD traps and SLM traps (see paras. [0122 and 0191] of Bluvstein). However, Bluvstein does not specifically note that spatially split a wave function of said trapped atom between at least two of said tweezers, and to at least partially recombine said split atomic wave function in at least one of said tweezers.
Menchon teaches an atomic interferometer with a plurality of atom traps. Specifically, Menchon teaches spatially split a wave function of said trapped atom between at least two of said tweezers, and to at least partially recombine said split atomic wave function in at least one of said tweezers (The “single cold atom is initially located in vibrational ground state of Trap A,” then “the wavefunction is robustly split into a coherent superposition between two of the traps.” As shown in Fig. 5(b), at time t=0, the atom/wavefunction is localized in trap A; at t=T, “the atom wavefunction ends up in a superposition between the A and B traps,” i.e., split between trap A and trap B. “The last step is the recombination process that consists of reversing in time the evolution of the couplings performed during the splitting process.” “At the time 2T the population distribution of the final atomic state among the asymptotic states of the traps will allow for a direct measurement of the imprinted (or accumulated) phase”).
Bluvstein teaches a controllable optical-tweezer array which implements trap-based atom manipulation, including coherent transport of neutral atoms between optical tweezers while preserving coherence and entanglement. Menchon teaches a trap-based split/recombine interferometer technique where controlled traps are used to spatially split a single atom’s wavefunction into between traps and then recombined by reversing the process. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to implement Menchon’s trap-based split/recombine sequence using Bluestein’s optical tweezer arrays so that in the modified system, instead of relying merely on a direct pickup/release or direct tunneling handoff between two tweezers, the atom wavefunction is controllably shared between traps and then returned/recombined into a selected trap. As Menchon explains, that direct tunneling between two resonant traps leads to Rabi-type oscillations of atomic population that are experimentally difficult to control because they are sensitive to small variations in system parameters, and that spatial adiabatic passage avoids this problem by controlling tunning in a robust manner without requiring accurate control of system parameters. As such, applying Menchon’s robust adiabatic trap-coupling would improve the robustness of atom transfer between optical tweezer traps.
Regarding Claim 2:
Bluvstein in view of Menchon teaches atomic interferometer system of claim 1. Menchon further teaches wherein each of said splitting and said recombination is adiabatic (Menchon teaches “a fully two-dimensional spatial adiabatic passage process,” and recombination is the reverse process).
Regarding Claim 6:
Bluvstein in view of Menchon teaches atomic interferometer system of claim 1. Bluvstein further teaches wherein said controller is configured control said tweezers in pairs… executed among each pair independently from other pairs (paras. [0014, 0119]: “Each of the plurality of neutral atoms is disposed in a corresponding optical trap. The plurality of neutral atoms comprises a first subset and a second subset. Each neutral atom of the first subset is placed within a blockade radius of a first corresponding neutral atom of the second subset, thereby forming a first plurality of pairs” “Local Rydberg excitation on subsets of qubit pairs would…allowing parallel, independent operations on arrays”). Menchon teaches the splitting and recombination operation as discussed in claim 1. As such, Bluvstein in view of Menchon teaches control said tweezers in pairs in a manner that said splitting and said recombination are executed among each pair independently from other pairs.
Regarding Claim 9:
Bluvstein in view of Menchon teaches atomic interferometer system of claim 1. Bluvstein further teaches wherein an atomic number of said atoms is at least 30 (87Rb atom has atomic number 37).
Regarding Claim 10:
Bluvstein in view of Menchon teaches atomic interferometer system of claim 1. Bluvstein teaches wherein said atoms are alkali group atoms (Rb is an alkali metal group).
Regarding Claim 11:
Bluvstein in view of Menchon teaches atomic interferometer system of claim 1. Bluvstein teaches wherein said atoms are alkaline metal group atoms (Rb is an alkali metal group).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bluvstein in view of Menchon, and further in view of Xu, V. et al., (2019). Probing gravity by holding atoms for 20 seconds. Science, 366(6466), 745–749[hereinafter Xu].
Regarding Claim 5:
Bluvstein in view of Menchon teaches the atomic interferometer system of claim 1. However, the combined references do not specially note that wherein said controller is configured to effect said recombination a time period after said splitting, said time period being at least 10 seconds. Xu teaches wherein said controller is configured to effect said recombination a time period after said splitting, said time period being at least 10 seconds (Abstract: “interrogation time of 20 seconds by suspending the spatially-separated atomic wavepackets in a lattice formed by the mode of an optical cavity”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify Bluvstein-Menchon’s optical tweezer-based atomic interferometer to maintain the spatially split wavefunction for a longer interrogation time of 20 seconds, as taught by Xu, because Xu teaches that increasing interrogation time improved atom interferometer sensitivity and allows gravitational potentials to be measured by holding, rather than dropping, atoms.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bluvstein in view of Menchon, and further in view of Serwane, F et al., (2011). Deterministic Preparation of a Tunable Few-Fermion System. Science, 332(6027), 336–338 [hereinafter Serwane].
Regarding Claim 7:
Bluvstein in view of Menchon teaches the atomic interferometer system of claim 1. However, the combined references do not specially note that wherein said atoms are fermionic atoms, wherein said atom source system is configured to release a plurality of atoms in a respective plurality of different discrete energy eigenstates. Serwane teaches wherein said atoms are fermionic atoms, wherein said atom source system is configured to release a plurality of atoms in a respective plurality of different discrete energy eigenstates (“We have created a few-body quantum system with complete control over its quantum state using ultracold fermionic atoms in an optical dipole trap”. The fermions fill different discrete trap energy states due to the Pauli exclusion principle, “which states that each single particle state cannot be occupied by more than one identical fermion”).
As such, the controller as taught in Bluvstein can be configured to control said optical tweezers to trap said plurality of atoms in one of said tweezers.
Bluvstein teaches an optical tweezer system and a controller. Serwane teaches using fermionic atoms in an optical trap with controlled few-particle occupation. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to use an atom source contain fermionic atoms as taught in Serwane, so that the controller from the Bluvstein can control such fermionic atoms in its tweezers, because as taught by Serwane, that fermionic atoms can be confined in an optical trap while occupying different discrete trap energy eigenstates, this provides a predictable and well-defined multi-atom state in a single trap, rather than an uncontrolled many-atom occupation.
Regarding Claim 8:
Bluvstein in view of Menchon, further in view of Serwane teaches the atomic interferometer system of claim 7. Serwane further teaches wherein said atom source system comprises a laser cooling system configured to cool said atoms to form a Fermi gas, and said controller is configured to trap said Fermi gas in one of said tweezers and to reduce a number of atoms in said trapped Fermi gas by reducing a potential depth of said tweezer (“This approach requires a highly degenerate Fermi gas in a trap whose depth can be controlled.” “We load the microtrap from a reservoir of cold atoms.” “Systems with up to 10 fermions are prepared with Li atoms in a micrometer sized optical dipole trap.” “By varying the depth of the microtrap and the strength of the magnetic field gradient we can control the number of bound states in the potential”).
Claims 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bluvstein in view of Menchon, and further in view of Parazzoli, L. P., et al., (2012). Observation of Free-Space Single-Atom Matter Wave Interference. Physical Review Letters, 109(23) [hereinafter Parazzoli]:
Regarding Claim 12:
Bluvstein in view of Menchon teaches the atomic interferometer system of claim 1. However, the combined references do not specially note that wherein at least one of said tweezers has a waist of less than 10 mm in diameter. Parazzoli teaches wherein at least one of said tweezers has a waist of less than 10 mm in diameter (“The trapping light focuses to a 1/e2 radius of 1.8 μm”).
Bluvstein teaches optical tweezer trapping array and Parazzoli teaches a micro-scale optical tweezer that is suitable for trapping and localizing atoms in an atomic interferometer system. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to configure the optical tweezer in Bluvstein to have a waist less than 10 μm, as taught by Parazzoli, to provide strong spatial lactonization and tight confinement of the trapped atom during tweezer-based interferometer operation.
Regarding Claim 13:
The phrase “a system for [recited purpose]” is interpreted as an intended use or field-of-use statement because the claim does not recite additional structure required for performing that purpose beyond the atomic interferometer system of claim 1. Therefore, the limitation is satisfied by a prior art atomic interferometer system that is structurally capable of the recited use.
Parazzoli teaches a system for measuring a Casimir-Polder force between an atom and a surface (“Of particular interest at this length scale is the ability to probe, with absolute accuracy, forces that are very near to surfaces…such as Casimir-Polder forces”).
Bluvstein in view of Menchon teaches the atomic interferometer system of claim 1. As such, modify the system of Parazzoli with the atomic interferometer system taught by Bluvstein in view of Menchon would yield a system for measuring a Casimir-Polder force between an atom and a surface, comprising the atomic interferometer system according to claim 1.
Bluvstein teaches programmable optical tweezers for positioning and imaging atoms, and Menchon teaches the trap-based interferometer operation for converting phase changes into measurable population differences. Parazzoli teaches a tightly localized optical tweezer atom interferometer is useful for measuring short-range forces near surfaces, including Casimir-Polder forces. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to apply the modified system to Casimir-Polder force sensing to use the positional optical tweezer to place the atoms near the surface while detect force-induced phase changes via the split/recombined operation through final population readout.
Regarding Claim 15:
The phrase “in use for [recited purpose]” is interpreted as an intended use or field-of-use statement because the claim does not recite additional structure required for performing that purpose beyond the atomic interferometer system of claim 1. Therefore, the limitation is satisfied by a prior art atomic interferometer system that is structurally capable of the recited use.
Bluvstein in view of Menchon teaches the atomic interferometer system of claim 1. However, the combined references do not specially note that the system is in use for measuring at least one of time, acceleration, rotation, and gravity. Parazzoli teaches the system is in use for measuring at least one of time, acceleration, rotation, and gravity (“The measured phase shift (blue squares) is determined at each interrogation time by measuring the interferometric fringe, as in Fig. 2. The points are fit (blue line) to determine the acceleration of the atom due to gravity”)
Bluvstein teaches programmable optical tweezers for positioning and imaging atoms, and Menchon teaches the trap-based interferometer operation for converting phase changes into measurable population differences. Parazzoli teaches that atom interferometers are sensitive to inertial and gravitational effects and specially uses an optical tweezer atom interferometer as compact, localized sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to use Bluevstein-Menchon’s optical tweezer-based atomic interferometer system to measure acceleration and gravity, as taught by Parazzoli, because atom interferometers were known to measure phase shifts caused by acceleration, rotation, and gravity.
Claims 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bluvstein in view of Menchon, and further in view of Hu, L., et al., (2017). Atom Interferometry with the Sr Optical Clock Transition. Physical Review Letters, 119(26) [hereinafter Hu].
Regarding Claim 16:
The phrase “a system for [recited purpose]” is interpreted as an intended use or field-of-use statement because the claim does not recite additional structure required for performing that purpose beyond the atomic interferometer system of claim 1. Therefore, the limitation is satisfied by a prior art atomic interferometer system that is structurally capable of the recited use.
Hu teaches a system for detecting gravitational waves (“we demonstrate an atom interferometer based on the ultra-narrow 1S0-3P0 optical clock transition of 88Sr atoms… the virtually indefinite lifetime of the upper clock state in strontium is crucial for demanding applications as, for example, gravitational wave detectors”).
Bluvstein in view of Menchon teaches the atomic interferometer system of claim 1. As such, in light of Hu’s teaching, a system comprising the atomic interferometer system according to claim 1 can be used for detecting gravitational waves.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to use Bluevstein-Menchon’s optical tweezer-based atomic interferometer system to for gravitational wave detection, as taught by Hu, because Hu expressly explains that atom interferometers based on optical clock transitions are suitable for demanding precision-sensing applications, including gravitational wave detectors.
Regarding Claim 17:
The phrase “a system for [recited purpose]” is interpreted as an intended use or field-of-use statement because the claim does not recite additional structure required for performing that purpose beyond the atomic interferometer system of claim 1. Therefore, the limitation is satisfied by a prior art atomic interferometer system that is structurally capable of the recited use.
Hu teaches a system for measuring atomic transitions (Hu teaches an atom interferometer based on single-photon interaction on the ultranarrow optical clock transition of strontium atoms, therefore, Hu teaches using an atom interferometer system involving measurement/interrogation of an atomic clock transitions).
Bluvstein in view of Menchon teaches the atomic interferometer system of claim 1. As such, in light of Hu’s teaching, a system comprising the atomic interferometer system according to claim 1 can be used for measuring atomic transitions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to use Bluevstein-Menchon’s optical tweezer-based atomic interferometer system for measuring atomic transitions, as taught by Hu, because Hu expressly demonstrates an atom interferometer based on the ultra-narrow optical clock transition of strontium, and where the ultra-narrow atomic transitions provide highly stable and precise references for atom interferometric measurement.
Regarding Claim 20:
Hu teaches “optical spectroscopy of ultra-narrow optical transitions in atoms and ions have produced clocks with the highest relative frequency accuracy” and further demonstrates an atom interferometer based on the ultranarrow optical clock transition of Sr atoms. Thus, Hu at least suggests to configure an atom interferometer system to operate on an atomic clock transition for atomic clock applications.
Bluvstein in view of Menchon teaches the atomic interferometer system of claim 1. As such, in light of Hu’s teaching/suggestion, the combined references teach an atomic clock, comprising the atomic interferometer system according to claim 1
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to configure an atomic clock to include Bluevstein-Menchon’s optical tweezer-based atomic interferometer system, as suggested by Hu, because Hu teaches that optical transitions in atoms has produced the highest accuracy clocks and demonstrates atom interferometry using an ultra-narrow optical lock transition, and one of ordinary skulled would be motivated to adapt the Bluevtein’ system for atomic clock operation by using Hu’s optical clock transition as the precision frequency reference.
Claims 14, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bluvstein in view of Menchon, and further in view of US20140190254A1 [hereinafter Bouyer].
Regarding Claim 14:
The phrase “a system for [recited purpose]” is interpreted as an intended use or field-of-use statement because the claim does not recite additional structure required for performing that purpose beyond the atomic interferometer system of claim 1. Therefore, the limitation is satisfied by a prior art atomic interferometer system that is structurally capable of the recited use.
Bouyer teaches a system for mapping subsurface structures (paras. [0002 and 0032]: “The cold atom gravity gradiometer may be deployed for gravity or acceleration measurement in vibrationally noisy environments such as those associate within the fields …Precise maps of local gravitational fields may be used to identify subsurface anomalies such as hydrocarbon reservoir or sub-surface bunkers”).
Bluvstein in view of Menchon teaches the atomic interferometer system of claim 1. As such, in light of Bouyer s teaching, a system comprising the atomic interferometer system according to claim 1 can be used for mapping subsurface structures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to use Bluevstein-Menchon’s optical tweezer-based atomic interferometer system for subsurface mapping, as taught by Bouyer, because, as suggested by Bouyer, atomic interferometric gravity gradient sensing was known to detect spatial variations in local gravity caused by underground mass distributions.
Regarding Claim 18:
The phrase “a system for [recited purpose]” is interpreted as an intended use or field-of-use statement because the claim does not recite additional structure required for performing that purpose beyond the atomic interferometer system of claim 1. Therefore, the limitation is satisfied by a prior art atomic interferometer system that is structurally capable of the recited use.
Bouyer teaches a system for seismic monitoring (para. [0032]: “The cold atom gravity gradiometer may be deployed for gravity or acceleration measurement in vibrationally noisy environments such as those associate within the fields of geophysics.” Seismic monitoring is a geographical application involving measuring/monitoring of ground motion, acceleration, or gravity-related signals)
Bluvstein in view of Menchon teaches the atomic interferometer system of claim 1. As such, in light of Bouyer s teaching, a system comprising the atomic interferometer system according to claim 1 can be used for seismic monitoring.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to use Bluevstein-Menchon’s optical tweezer-based atomic interferometer system for seismic monitoring, as taught by Bouyer, because, as suggested by Bouyer, atomic interferometric acceleration/gravity-gradient measurements are useful for detecting and monitoring geophysical motion or disturbances.
Regarding Claim 19:
The phrase “a system for [recited purpose]” is interpreted as an intended use or field-of-use statement because the claim does not recite additional structure required for performing that purpose beyond the atomic interferometer system of claim 1. Therefore, the limitation is satisfied by a prior art atomic interferometer system that is structurally capable of the recited use.
Bouyer teaches an inertial navigation system (para. [0032]: “The cold atom gravity gradiometer may be deployed for gravity or acceleration measurement in vibrationally noisy environments such as those associate within the fields of geophysics and inertial navigation”).
Bluvstein in view of Menchon teaches the atomic interferometer system of claim 1. As such, in light of Bouyer s teaching, an inertial navigation system of Bouyer comprising the atomic interferometer system according to claim 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to configure Bluevstein-Menchon’s optical tweezer-based atomic interferometer system as an inertial navigation system, as taught by Bouyer, because, as suggested by Bouyer, atomic interferometric acceleration/gravity-gradient measurements may be sued in inertia navigation and would provide precise inertial information useful for determining monition or position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objection set forth in this Office Action and to include all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. 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.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights