DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This is an office action in response to applicant’s amendment and remarks filed on July 24, 2026. Claims 1-11 are pending in the application and are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The objection to the claims in the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
New objections to the claims are necessitated by the amendments.
All rejections from the previous office action are maintained and modified as necessitated by the amendments.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph, are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 7, “unit, configured” should read “unit configured”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 7-11 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a rod-shaped sensor” in line 7 of the claim. It is unclear whether “a rod-shaped sensor” in line 7 is the same as or different from the previously recited “a sensor” in line 2 of the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets them to be the same. Claims 8-11 are rejected as dependent thereon.
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.
Claim 5 is 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. Claim 5 recites “an intermediate layer which is suitable for being arranged between the membrane unit and the rod-shaped sensor”, which does not further limit claim 1 which already recites “an intermediate layer configured to be arranged between the membrane unit and the rod-shaped sensor” in lines 4-5 of claim 1. 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 1-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dicks et al. (US 6,197,172 B1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2016/0109402 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dicks teaches a protective membrane system for a rod-shaped sensor (a modified membrane 44 and adhesive-backed washer 142 for a rod-shaped electrochemical sensor 110, Dicks, Figs. 2, 4, & 6, col. 6, lns. 23 & 34-36), comprising:
a membrane unit which is resilient (the modified membrane 44 comprises a membrane layer 145 made from polyester and having an average pore size of 0.1 microns to 1.0 microns, Dicks, Figs. 2, 4, & 6, col. 6, lns. 46-49 & 57-58; the modified membrane 44 prolongs the uselife of the sensor, Dicks, col. 3, lns. 10-13).
Dicks teaches that the membrane layer 145 is made from polyester and has an average pore size of 0.1 microns to 1.0 microns (Dicks, Figs. 2, 4, & 6, col. 6, lns. 46-49 & 57-58). Dicks teaches that the membrane system allows passage of the chemical species to be measured by the ion selective electrode (Dicks, col. 3, lns. 1-4). Dicks fails to teach wherein the membrane layer has a lattice structure.
Lee teaches an ion selective electrode sensor including open mesh fabric sieves traversing an opening in a housing of the ion selective electrode sensor (Lee, abstract). Lee teaches that the sieve disk 13 allows ion exchange to occur between a test solution outside of the housing 1 and the internal solution 14 of the ion selective electrode sensor 10 (Lee, Fig. 1, para. [0009], [0020]). Lee teaches that the sieve disk 13 is a woven open mesh fabric constructed from polyester with a mesh size in the range of about 80 to 120 µm (Lee, Fig. 1, para. [0023]).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the porous membrane layer 145 of Dicks to have a mesh sieve shape as taught by Lee in order to yield the predictable result of allowing passage of the chemical species to be measured by the ion selective electrode. Additionally, generally, differences in shape will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B). Therefore, it would have been a matter of choice to use a mesh sieve shape which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious.
Modified Dicks teaches an intermediate layer configured to be arranged between the membrane unit and the rod-shaped sensor (the modified membrane 44 further comprises an exchanger layer 147 arranged between the membrane layer 145 and the rod-shaped electrochemical sensor 110, Dicks, Figs. 2, 4, & 6, col. 6, lns. 23 & 57-59); and
a secondary fastening unit configured to fasten the protective membrane system, including the membrane unit and the intermediate layer, to the rod-shaped sensor (the adhesive-backed washer 142 secures in place the modified membrane 44 including the membrane layer 145 and exchanger layer 147 over sensor body face 116 of the rod-shaped electrochemical sensor 110, Dicks, Figs. 2, 4, & 6, col. 6, lns. 23, 34-36, 57-59).
The limitations "for a rod-shaped sensor," "resilient," “arranged between the membrane unit and the rod-shaped sensor,” "releasably fasten the protective membrane system, including the membrane unit and the intermediate layer, to the rod-shaped sensor," and “wherein the protective membrane system, including the membrane unit and the intermediate layer, is removable from the rod-shaped sensor by releasing the secondary fastening unit” are interpreted as intended use and/or functional language. Examiner further notes that "rod-shaped sensor" is not a positively recited element of the claim, and therefore, is not an element of the claimed protective membrane system. The Courts have held that the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114. The modified membrane 44 and adhesive-backed washer 142 disclosed by Modified Dicks teach all of the structural limitations of the claim and thus are configured for and capable of the interpreted as intended use and/or functional language as recited in the rejection supra.
Furthermore, Dicks teaches that the porous membrane is removably connected to the electrochemical sensor (Dicks, claim 12). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified membrane 44 and the adhesive-backed washer 142 of Modified Dicks to be made separable from the rod-shaped electrochemical sensor 110 because it would allow for easier replacement of the elements. MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Dicks teaches wherein the lattice structure has meshes of a size less than 1 mm (the mesh sieve membrane layer 145 has a mesh size of 0.1 microns to 1.0 microns, Dicks, Figs. 2, 4, & 6, col. 6, lns. 46-49, Lee, para. [0023], see modification supra).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Dicks teaches wherein the membrane unit comprises textile (the membrane layer 145 comprises polyester, Dicks, Figs. 2, 4, & 6, col. 6, lns. 46-49).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Dicks teaches wherein the secondary fastening unit comprises an O-ring or a hook element (the adhesive-backed washer 142 has a hook shape, Dicks, Figs. 2 & 6, col. 6, lns. 34-36).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Dicks teaches wherein the protective membrane system further comprises an intermediate layer which is suitable for being arranged between the membrane unit and the rod-shaped sensor (the modified membrane 44 further comprises the exchanger layer 147 arranged between the membrane layer 145 and the rod-shaped electrochemical sensor 110, Dicks, Figs. 2, 4, & 6, col. 6, lns. 23 & 57-59).
The limitation "suitable for being arranged between the membrane unit and the rod- shaped sensor" is interpreted as intended use and/or functional language. Examiner further notes that "the rod-shaped sensor" is not a positively recited element of the claim, and therefore, is not an element of the claimed protective membrane system. The Courts have held that the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114. The modified membrane 44 disclosed by Modified Dicks teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim and thus is configured for and capable of the interpreted as intended use and/or functional language as recited in the rejection supra.
Regarding claim 6, Modified Dicks teaches wherein the membrane unit is suitable to reduce ion transport through the membrane unit (the modified membrane 44 including the membrane layer 145 allows passage of the chemical species to be measured while inhibiting the passage of other species, Dicks, col. 3, lns. 1-9, col. 4, lns. 20-34, col. 6, lns. 42-53).
The limitation "suitable to reduce ion transport through the membrane unit" is interpreted as intended use and/or functional language. The Courts have held that the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114. The modified membrane 44 comprising the membrane layer 145 disclosed by Modified Dicks teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim and thus is configured for and capable of the interpreted as intended use and/or functional language as recited in the rejection supra.
Regarding claim 7, Dicks teaches a sensor unit (an electrochemical sensor 110, Dicks, Figs. 2 & 6, col. 6, lns. 23) comprising:
a sensor having a sensor body which extends along an axis and has a first end (the electrochemical sensor 110 has a sensor body 112 which extends along an axis and has a first end with a sensor body face 116, Dicks, Figs. 2 & 6, col. 6, lns. 23-28), wherein a sensitive unit is arranged at the first end (an active sensor membrane 117 is formed on the sensor body face 116 at the first end, Dicks, Figs. 2 & 6, col. 6, lns. 28-29), and the first end is suitable for being immersed in a process medium (the active sensor membrane 117 at the first end is for sensing a specific chemical species in a test medium, Dicks, Figs. 2 & 6, col. 3, lns. 56-65, col. 5, lns. 40-42, col. 6, lns. 28-29), and
a protective membrane system including a membrane unit which is resilient (a modified membrane 44 comprises a membrane layer 145 made from polyester and having an average pore size of 0.1 microns to 1.0 microns, Dicks, Figs. 2, 4, & 6, col. 6, lns. 46 -49 & 57-58; the modified membrane 44 prolongs the uselife of the sensor, Dicks, col. 3, lns. 10-13), an intermediate layer configured to be arranged between the membrane unit and a rod-shaped sensor (the modified membrane 44 further comprises an exchanger layer 147 arranged between the membrane layer 145 and the rod-shaped electrochemical sensor 110, Dicks, Figs. 2, 4, & 6, col. 6, lns. 23 & 57-59), and a secondary fastening unit, configured to fasten the protective membrane system, including the membrane unit and the intermediate layer, to the rod-shaped sensor (the modified membrane 44 including the membrane layer 145 and exchanger layer 147 is secured in place to the rod-shaped electrochemical sensor 110 using the hook-shaped edges of the modified membrane 44, Dicks, Figs. 2, 4, & 6, col. 4, lns. 35-45, col. 6, lns. 23, 34-36, 57-59).
Dicks teaches that the membrane layer 145 is made from polyester and has an average pore size of 0.1 microns to 1.0 microns (Dicks, Figs. 2, 4, & 6, col. 6, lns. 46-49 & 57-58). Dicks teaches that the membrane system allows passage of the chemical species to be measured by the ion selective electrode (Dicks, col. 3, lns. 1-4). Dicks fails to teach wherein the membrane layer has a lattice structure.
Lee teaches an ion selective electrode sensor including open mesh fabric sieves traversing an opening in a housing of the ion selective electrode sensor (Lee, abstract). Lee teaches that the sieve disk 13 allows ion exchange to occur between a test solution outside of the housing 1 and the internal solution 14 of the ion selective electrode sensor 10 (Lee, Fig. 1, para. [0009], [0020]). Lee teaches that the sieve disk 13 is a woven open mesh fabric constructed from polyester with a mesh size in the range of about 80 to 120 µm (Lee, Fig. 1, para. [0023]).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the porous membrane layer 145 of Dicks to have a mesh sieve shape as taught by Lee in order to yield the predictable result of allowing passage of the chemical species to be measured by the ion selective electrode. Additionally, generally, differences in shape will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B). Therefore, it would have been a matter of choice to use a mesh sieve shape which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious.
Modified Dicks teaches wherein the protective membrane system is arranged at the first end and fastened to the sensor body such that the sensitive unit is covered by the protective membrane system towards the process medium (the modified membrane 44 is arranged over the sensor body face 116 at the first end and secured to the sensor body 112 such that the active sensor membrane 117 is covered by the modified membrane 44 towards the test medium, Dicks, Figs. 2 & 6, col. 3, lns. 56-65, col. 6, lns. 23-36).
The limitations "suitable for being immersed in a process medium," "resilient," "releasably fasten the protective membrane system, including the membrane unit and the intermediate layer, to the rod-shaped sensor," and “wherein the protective membrane system, including the membrane unit and the intermediate layer, is removable from the rod-shaped sensor by releasing the secondary fastening unit” are interpreted as intended use and/or functional language. The Courts have held that the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114. The electrochemical sensor 110 disclosed by Modified Dicks teach all of the structural limitations of the claim and thus are configured for and capable of the interpreted as intended use and/or functional language as recited in the rejection supra.
Furthermore, Dicks teaches that the porous membrane is removably connected to the electrochemical sensor (Dicks, claim 12). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified membrane 44 including the membrane layer 145 and exchanger layer 147 of Modified Dicks to be made separable from the rod-shaped electrochemical sensor 110 because it would allow for easier replacement of the elements. MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Dicks teaches wherein the sensor body has a primary fastening unit which is complementary to the secondary fastening unit of the protective membrane system (the electrochemical sensor 110 has an adhesive-backed washer 142 which is complementary to the hook-shaped edges of the modified membrane 44 for sandwiching the modified membrane 44, Dicks, Figs. 2, 4, & 6, col. 4, lns. 35-45, col. 6, lns. 23 & 34-36).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Dicks teaches wherein the primary fastening unit comprises a hook element (the adhesive-backed washer 142 has a hook shape, Dicks, Figs. 2 & 6, col. 6, lns. 34-36), and the secondary fastening unit is formed integrally with the membrane unit (the hook-shaped edges of the modified membrane 44 are formed integrally with the modified membrane 44, Dicks, Figs. 2 & 6, col. 4, lns. 35-45, col. 6, lns. 34-36).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Dicks teaches wherein the sensor comprises an ion-selective electrode (the electrochemical sensor 110 is an ion-selective electrode, Dicks, Figs. 2 & 6, col. 5, lns. 12-15, col. 6, ln. 23), and has an electrolyte in the sensor body (an electrolyte 122 in the sensor body 112, Dicks, Figs. 2 & 6, col. 6, lns. 30-33), and has a discharge line arranged in the electrolyte (an active electrode 138 arranged in the electrolyte 122, Dicks, Fig. 2, col. 6, lns. 26 & 32-33), wherein the sensitive unit is an ion-selective membrane which is in direct contact with the electrolyte (the active sensor membrane 117 is an ion-selective membrane which is in direct contact with the electrolyte 122, Dicks, Figs. 2 & 6, col. 5, lns. 40-41, col. 6, lns. 27-33 & 64).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dicks in view of Lee as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Havas et al. (US 4,375,399 A).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Dicks teaches that the electrochemical sensor 110 has an adhesive-backed washer 142 which is complementary to the hook-shaped edges of the modified membrane 44 for sandwiching the modified membrane 44 in place to the electrochemical sensor 110 (Dicks, Figs. 2, 4, & 6, col. 4, lns. 35-45, col. 6, lns. 23 & 34-36). This embodiment of Modified Dicks fails to teach wherein the primary fastening unit is a groove in the sensor body running around the axis, and the secondary fastening unit is designed as an O-ring.
However, Dicks teaches that the modified membrane 44 may alternatively be held in place by an O-ring instead of the adhesive-backed washer 142 (Dicks, col. 4, lns. 37-40). Dicks also teaches that the sensor body 112 has a groove running around the axis near the modified membrane 44 (Dicks, Figs. 2 & 6).
Furthermore, Havas teaches an ion-selective electroanalytical sensor (Havas, col. 1, lns. 8-10). Havas teaches that the membrane 7 is fixed to the covering body 1 by a rubber ring 8, and the covering body 1 has a groove running around its axis where the rubber ring 8 is placed (Havas, Figs. 1-2, col. 4, lns. 32-33, col. 7, lns. 1-2).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the adhesive-backed washer 142 of Modified Dicks with an O-ring as taught by Havas and the alternative embodiment of Dicks in order to yield the predictable result of fixing an elongated modified membrane 44 to the sensor using the O-ring along the groove. Simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (2007); MPEP § 2143(I)(B). Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the arguments presented on pages 9-10 of the amendment, Applicant argues that none of the references cited appear to disclose “a lattice structure that is decoupled from the ion-sensitive layer”. Applicant asserts that Dicks suggests that the porous membrane layer 145 and the gel layer 146 are inseparable. Applicant asserts that Lee describes an inseparable layered structure.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a lattice structure that is decoupled from the ion-sensitive layer) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In the arguments presented on page 10 of the amendment, Applicant argues that none of the prior art disclose the Applicant’s intermediate layer which serves to decouple the membrane unit from the sensitive unit. Applicant asserts that Dicks teaches a modified membrane whose gel-coated side is brought into intimate contact with the ISE membrane and whose gel layer is in communicative contact with the ion-specific material, and thus Dicks’ gel layer or optional ion-exchanger layer is not an intermediate decoupling layer, but part of the modified membrane/ISE interface.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an intermediate decoupling layer that serves to decouple the membrane unit from the sensitive unit) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As discussed in the rejection supra, Dicks teaches an intermediate layer configured to be arranged between the membrane unit and the rod-shaped sensor (the modified membrane 44 further comprises an exchanger layer 147 arranged between the membrane layer 145 and the rod-shaped electrochemical sensor 110 (Figs. 2, 4, & 6, col. 6, lns. 23 & 57-59)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVIAN A TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3232. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9am-5pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/V.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
