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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the preliminary amendment filed on 07/31/2024.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains at least one of the phrases that can be implied, such as the phrase “the present invention relates to”. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “a first, internal layer” and “a second, external layer” without defining which side of the planar array is considered internal and which side of the planar array is considered external. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the internal and external sides of the optical fibers.
The claim recites “said mechanical structure including a first, internal layer […] and a second, external layer” without explaining how the combination of the layers defines “the mechanical structure” to “enhance fiber bending”. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted elements are: the features of the layers or combination of layers forming the mechanical structure to enhance fiber bending.
The recitation of “define pressure sensors at respective points” and “an intersecting point defining the pressure sensor” in ambiguous, as the claim does not explain whether a pressure sensor is defined at both the respective points and the intersecting point (1) or only at the respective points or the intersecting points (2).
Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 5, the recitation of “a first, internal layer” and “a second, external layer” without defining which side of the planar array is considered internal and which side of the planar array is considered external. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the internal and external sides of the optical fibers.
The claim recites that “said mechanical structure including a first, internal layer […] and a second, external layer” without explaining how the combination of the layers “establish[es] an optical coupling” between the layers, when the fibers “extend in parallel in a planar array”. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted elements are: the features of the layers or combination of layers forming the mechanical structure to enhance fiber bending.
Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 13, the recitation of “a first, internal layer” and “a second, external layer” without defining which side of the planar array is considered internal and which side of the planar array is considered external. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the internal and external sides of the optical fibers.
The claim recites “said mechanical structure including a first, internal layer […], a second external layer […]” without explaining how the combination of the layers defines “the mechanical structure” to “enhance fiber bending”. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted elements are: the features of the layers or combination of layers forming the mechanical structure to enhance fiber bending.
Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 18, the recitation of “a first, internal layer” and “a second, external layer” without defining which side of the planar array is considered internal and which side of the planar array is considered external. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the internal and external sides of the optical fibers.
The recitation of “said mechanical structure includes a first, internal layer […], a second, intermediate layer […], and a third, external layer” without explaining how the combination of the layers defines “the mechanical structure” to “enhance fiber bending”. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted elements are: the features of the layers or combination of layers forming the mechanical structure to enhance fiber bending.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites “a white scattering tape” and “a black shielding material”, which are previously defined in the independent claim 18, without defining whether the second recitation of the tape and the material are in addition to or the same as the respective tape and material in the independent claim 18.
Claims 2-4, 6-12, 14-17, 19, 21 are rejected as being dependent on the rejected base claim.
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.
Claim 21 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. In this case, the claim defines “a mattress” without further limiting the details of the pressure sensor array of the independent 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.
Claims 1-4 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van den Boom et al. (Pat. No. U.S. 10,768,060) (hereafter van den Boom) in view of Peele et al. (Pat. No. US 10,976,207) (hereafter Peele) and Murad et al. (Pat. No. US 6,920,256) (hereafter Murad).
Regarding claim 1, van den Boom teaches an optical fiber pressure sensor array or grid for location, vibration and/or motion sensing including:
a plurality of receiving optical fibers (i.e., two or more column optical waveguide 108, 110, and 112) (see Fig. 1); and
a plurality of transmitting optical fibers (i.e., two or more row optical waveguides 102, 104, and 106) (see Fig. 1);
wherein said plurality of receiving optical fibers and said plurality of transmitting optical fibers are arranged in a planar array to define pressure sensors at respective points (i.e., two or more row optical waveguides 102, 104, and 106 and two or more column optical waveguide 108, 110, and 112 are arranged in a planar array to define crossing sensors) (see Column 2, line 45, to Column 3, line 56),
wherein a mechanical structure is provided at one or both sides of each pressure sensor to enhance fiber bending when a pressure is applied to the pressure sensor (i.e., mechanical structure that increases waveguide bending when the crossing sensor is subject to pressure can also be used) (see Column 2, line 45, to Column 3, line 56),
said mechanical structure including and a second, external layer made of a rigid material (i.e., a crossing sensor having a ring to enhance waveguide bending under pressure. Here 202 is a first rigid ring, 206 is the receiving optical waveguide and 204 is the transmitting optical waveguide) (see Column 2, line 45, to Column 3, line 56); but does not explicitly teach that said plurality of receiving optical fibers and/or said plurality of transmitting optical fibers is curved at an intersecting point defining the pressure sensor and a first, internal layer contacting the receiving and transmitting optical fibers and made of a flexible, light-scattering material.
Regarding the first internal layer, Peele teaches a first, internal layer contacting the receiving and transmitting optical fibers and made of a flexible, light-scattering material (i.e., optical fibers disposed in the elastomeric foam component) (see Column 4, liens 21-29). In view of the teaching of Peele, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the elastic foam component in order to improve the sensor’s response to pressure. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding the intersecting point, Murad teaches that said plurality of receiving optical fibers and/or said plurality of transmitting optical fibers is curved at an intersecting point defining the pressure sensor (i.e., each of the fibers 501a-f is configured to have a circular center portion 510 and each fiber 501a to 501f is arranged concentrically one to the other) (see Fig. 7). In view of the teaching of Murad, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed curved fibers at the intersecting point in order to improve force pattern identification. Furthermore, it has been held that insignificant changes to shape which do not contain critical design requirements are a matter of choice which one having of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed limitation is significant (see MPEP 2144.04 (IV-B)).
Regarding claim 2, van den Boom teaches that the receiving and transmitting optical fibers are Polymer Optical Fibers (POF) (i.e., waveguides 508 and 510 were standard PMMA (polymethylmethacrylate) step index POF (SI POF)) (see Column 4, lines 27-39). Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 3, van den Boom as modified by Peele and Murad as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the first, internal layer of the mechanical structure is made of a white silicone rubber and/or wherein the second, external layer of the mechanical structure is made of polyvinyl chloride. However, Peele teaches that the first, internal layer of the mechanical structure is made of a white silicone rubber (i.e., the elastomeric foam may be silicone) (see Column 5, lines 1-16). In view of the teaching of Peele, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the elastic foam component in order to improve the sensor’s response to pressure. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 4, van den Boom as modified by Peele and Murad as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the mechanical structure is provided at one side of the pressure sensor, and a rigid, light-scattering layer is provided at the other side of the pressure sensor opposite the mechanical structure. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the mechanical structure around the pressure sensor, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)).
Regarding claim 21, van den Boom teaches a mattress including the optical fiber pressure sensor array or grid for location, vibration and/or motion sensing (i.e., a proof-of-principle setup has been realized to measure a pressure profile of a person lying on a mattress using fiber crossings) (see Column 6, lines 14-28).
Claims 5-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van den Boom et al. (Pat. No. U.S. 10,768,060) (hereafter van den Boom) in view of Peele et al. (Pat. No. US 10,976,207) (hereafter Peele)
Regarding claim 5, van den Boom teaches an optical fiber pressure sensor array or grid for location, vibration and/or motion sensing including:
a plurality of receiving optical fibers (i.e., two or more column optical waveguide 108, 110, and 112) (see Fig. 1), and
a plurality of transmitting optical fibers (i.e., two or more row optical waveguides 102, 104, and 106) (see Fig. 1),
wherein a mechanical structure is provided at one or both sides of the receiving and transmitting optical fibers to establish an optical coupling between the transmitting and receiving optical fibers when a pressure is exerted on the receiving and transmitting optical fibers (i.e., mechanical structure that increases waveguide bending when the crossing sensor is subject to pressure can also be used) (see Column 2, line 45, to Column 3, line 56),
said mechanical structure including a second, external layer made of a rigid material (i.e., a crossing sensor having a ring to enhance waveguide bending under pressure. Here 202 is a first rigid ring, 206 is the receiving optical waveguide and 204 is the transmitting optical waveguide) (see Column 2, line 45, to Column 3, line 56), and said plurality of receiving optical fibers and said plurality of transmitting optical fibers extend in parallel in a planar array (i.e., two or more row optical waveguides 102, 104, and 106 and two or more column optical waveguide 108, 110, and 112 are arranged in a planar array to define crossing sensors) (see Column 2, line 45, to Column 3, line 56); but does not explicitly teach that said mechanical structure including a first, internal layer contacting the receiving and transmitting optical fibers and made of a flexible, light-scattering material.
Regarding the first internal layer, Peele teaches that said mechanical structure including a first, internal layer contacting the receiving and transmitting optical fibers and made of a flexible, light-scattering material (i.e., optical fibers disposed in the elastomeric foam component) (see Column 4, liens 21-29). In view of the teaching of Peele, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the elastic foam component in order to improve the sensor’s response to pressure. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 6, van den Boom teaches that the optical fibers are Polymer Optical Fibers (POF) (i.e., waveguides 508 and 510 were standard PMMA (polymethylmethacrylate) step index POF (SI POF)) (see Column 4, lines 27-39). Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 7, van den Boom teaches that adjacent optical fibers are in contact with each other (i.e., adjacent intersecting fibers are in contact) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, van den Boom teaches that a gap is defined between adjacent optical fibers (i.e., adjacent parallel fibers are spaced apart) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, van den Boom teaches that the second, external layer is made of a corrugated rigid material (i.e., ring 202 has an opening 208) (see Fig. 3A-B).
Regarding claim 10, van den Boom as modified by Peele as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that that the first, internal layer of the mechanical structure is made of white silicone rubber and/or wherein the second, external layer of the mechanical structure is made polyvinyl chloride. However, Peele teaches that the first, internal layer of the mechanical structure is made of a white silicone rubber (i.e., the elastomeric foam may be silicone) (see Column 5, lines 1-16). In view of the teaching of Peele, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the elastic foam component in order to improve the sensor’s response to pressure. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 11, van den Boom as modified by Peele as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly that the mechanical structure is provided at one side of the receiving and transmitting optical fibers, and a corresponding rigid, light-scattering layer is provided at the other side of the receiving and transmitting optical fibers opposite the mechanical structure. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the mechanical structure around the pressure sensor, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)).
Regarding claim 12, van den Boom teaches that the mechanical structure includes multiple segments (i.e., rings 114) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, van den Boom teaches an optical fiber pressure sensor array or grid for location, vibration and/or motion sensing including:
a plurality of receiving optical fibers (i.e., two or more column optical waveguide 108, 110, and 112) (see Fig. 1), and
a plurality of transmitting optical fibers (i.e., two or more row optical waveguides 102, 104, and 106) (see Fig. 1),
wherein said plurality of receiving optical fibers and said plurality of transmitting optical fibers are arranged in a planar array to define pressure sensors at respective intersecting points (i.e., two or more row optical waveguides 102, 104, and 106 and two or more column optical waveguide 108, 110, and 112 are arranged in a planar array to define crossing sensors) (see Column 2, line 45, to Column 3, line 56), and
wherein a mechanical structure is provided at one or both sides of each pressure sensor to enhance fiber bending when a pressure is applied to the pressure sensor, said mechanical structure including a second, external layer made of a rigid material (i.e., a crossing sensor having a ring to enhance waveguide bending under pressure. Here 202 is a first rigid ring, 206 is the receiving optical waveguide and 204 is the transmitting optical waveguide) (see Column 2, line 45, to Column 3, line 56);
but does not explicitly teach a first, internal layer contacting the receiving and transmitting optical fibers and made of a flexible, light-scattering material, and an additional layer made of a flexible, light-scattering material is interposed between the optical fibers at an intersection point.
Regarding the internal layer and the additional layer, Peele teaches a first, internal layer contacting the receiving and transmitting optical fibers and made of a flexible, light-scattering material, and an additional layer made of a flexible, light-scattering material is interposed between the optical fibers at an intersection point (i.e., optical fibers disposed in the elastomeric foam component and partially penetrating the foam) (see Column 4, liens 21-29). In view of the teaching of Peele, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the elastic foam component in order to improve the sensor’s response to pressure. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 14, van den Boom teaches that the receiving and transmitting optical fibers are Polymer Optical Fibers (POF) (i.e., waveguides 508 and 510 were standard PMMA (polymethylmethacrylate) step index POF (SI POF)) (see Column 4, lines 27-39). Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 15, van den Boom as modified by Peele as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that said additional layer is made of flexible white silicone rubber or flexible white latex. However, Peele teaches that said additional layer is made of flexible white silicone rubber or flexible white latex (i.e., the elastomeric foam may be silicone) (see Column 5, lines 1-16). In view of the teaching of Peele, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the elastic foam component in order to improve the sensor’s response to pressure. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 16, van den Boom as modified by Peele as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the first, internal layer of the mechanical structure is made of white silicone rubber and/or wherein the second, external layer of the mechanical structure is made of polyvinyl chloride (PVC). However, Peele teaches that the first, internal layer of the mechanical structure is made of white silicone rubber (i.e., the elastomeric foam may be silicone) (see Column 5, lines 1-16). In view of the teaching of Peele, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the elastic foam component in order to improve the sensor’s response to pressure. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 17, van den Boom as modified by Peele as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the mechanical structure is provided at one side of the pressure sensor, and a rigid, light-scattering layer is provided at the other side of the pressure sensor opposite the mechanical structure. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the mechanical structure around the pressure sensor, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van den Boom et al. (Pat. No. U.S. 10,768,060) (hereafter van den Boom) in view of Carnicelli et al. (Pat. No. US 6,016,709) (hereafter Carnicelli)
Regarding claim 18, van den Boom teaches an optical fiber pressure sensor array or grid for location, vibration and/or motion sensing including:
a plurality of receiving optical fibers (i.e., two or more column optical waveguide 108, 110, and 112) (see Fig. 1), and
a plurality of transmitting optical fibers (i.e., two or more row optical waveguides 102, 104, and 106) (see Fig. 1),
wherein said plurality of receiving optical fibers and said plurality of transmitting optical fibers are arranged in a planar array to define pressure sensors at respective intersecting points (i.e., two or more row optical waveguides 102, 104, and 106 and two or more column optical waveguide 108, 110, and 112 are arranged in a planar array to define crossing sensors) (see Column 2, line 45, to Column 3, line 56), and
wherein a mechanical structure is provided at one or both sides of each pressure sensor to enhance fiber bending when a pressure is applied to the pressure sensor (i.e., mechanical structure that increases waveguide bending when the crossing sensor is subject to pressure can also be used) (see Column 2, line 45, to Column 3, line 56); but does not explicitly teach that said mechanical structure includes a first, internal layer in contact with the receiving and transmitting optical fibers and made of a white scattering tape, a second, intermediate layer made of a black shielding material and a third, external layer made of a flexible material.
Regarding the mechanical structure, mechanical structure includes a first, internal layer in contact with the receiving and transmitting optical fibers and made of a white scattering tape (i.e., scattering medium 3) (see Fig. 1), a second, intermediate layer made of a black shielding material (i.e., inner surface 10a of this substrate, and of the upper covering layer 11 may be either reflective or absorptive and a reflective upper cover 11a with a lower reflective surface 15, which is functional when the foam sheet 3a is used in thicknesses below its light extinction path length) (see Fig. 11) and a third, external layer made of a flexible material (i.e., substrate 10) (see Fig. 11). In view of the teaching of Carnicelli, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the flexible and absorptive or reflective and protective layers to the sensors in order to improve the sensor’s response to pressure.
Regarding claim 19, van den Boom teaches that the receiving and transmitting optical fibers are Polymer Optical Fibers (POF) (i.e., waveguides 508 and 510 were standard PMMA (polymethylmethacrylate) step index POF (SI POF)) (see Column 4, lines 27-39). Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 20, van den Boom as modified by Carnicelli as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the mechanical structure is provided at one side of the pressure sensor and wherein a first, internal layer made of a white scattering tape and a second, external layer made of a black shielding material are provided at the other side of the pressure sensor opposite the mechanical structure. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the mechanical structure around the pressure sensor, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN M. TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0307. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:30am - 7:00pm.
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, Laura Martin can be reached on (571)-272-2160. 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.
/Tran M. Tran/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights