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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-5 are directed to a method, claims 6-12 are directed to using a dielectric constant measurement system to perform the method. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Regarding claim 1:
A dielectric constant measurement method of measuring a dielectric constant of a target object by using a dielectric spectroscopy sensor, the dielectric constant measurement method comprising:
a step of acquiring an admittance of a first calibration standard of which a dielectric constant is known;
a step of measuring a first reflection coefficient of the first calibration standard;
a step of calculating an open reflection coefficient in an ideal open state of the dielectric spectroscopy sensor on the basis of the first reflection coefficient and the admittance of the first calibration standard when the first calibration standard is installed on a measurement end surface of the dielectric spectroscopy sensor;
a step of calculating a reflection coefficient of another calibration standard other than the first calibration standard on the basis of the open reflection coefficient and an admittance of the another calibration standard;
a step of measuring a reflection coefficient of the target object; and
a step of calculating the dielectric constant of the target object on the basis of the first reflection coefficient, the reflection coefficient of the another calibration standard, the reflection coefficient of the target object, the admittance of the first calibration standard, and the admittance of the another calibration standard.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“a step of acquiring an admittance of a first calibration standard of which a dielectric constant is known” is directed to mental step of data gathering.
“a step of measuring a first reflection coefficient of the first calibration standard” is directed to math.
“a step of calculating an open reflection coefficient in an ideal open state of the dielectric spectroscopy sensor on the basis of the first reflection coefficient and the admittance of the first calibration standard when the first calibration standard is installed on a measurement end surface of the dielectric spectroscopy sensor” is directed to math.
“a step of calculating a reflection coefficient of another calibration standard other than the first calibration standard on the basis of the open reflection coefficient and an admittance of the another calibration standard” is directed to math.
“a step of measuring a reflection coefficient of the target object” is directed to math.
“a step of calculating the dielectric constant of the target object on the basis of the first reflection coefficient, the reflection coefficient of the another calibration standard, the reflection coefficient of the target object, the admittance of the first calibration standard, and the admittance of the another calibration standard” is directed to math.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “sensor and measurement” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of "a step of measuring a first reflection coefficient of the first calibration standard; a step of calculating an open reflection coefficient in an ideal open state of the dielectric spectroscopy sensor on the basis of the first reflection coefficient and the admittance of the first calibration standard when the first calibration standard is installed on a measurement end surface of the dielectric spectroscopy sensor; a step of calculating a reflection coefficient of another calibration standard other than the first calibration standard on the basis of the open reflection coefficient and an admittance of the another calibration standard; a step of measuring a reflection coefficient of the target object; and a step of calculating the dielectric constant of the target object on the basis of the first reflection coefficient, the reflection coefficient of the another calibration standard, the reflection coefficient of the target object, the admittance of the first calibration standard, and the admittance of the another calibration standard” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“A dielectric constant measurement method of measuring a dielectric constant of a target object by using a dielectric spectroscopy sensor, the dielectric constant measurement method” recited in the preamble does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a step of acquiring an admittance of a first calibration standard of which a dielectric constant is known” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a step of measuring a first reflection coefficient of the first calibration standard” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a step of calculating an open reflection coefficient in an ideal open state of the dielectric spectroscopy sensor on the basis of the first reflection coefficient and the admittance of the first calibration standard when the first calibration standard is installed on a measurement end surface of the dielectric spectroscopy sensor” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a step of calculating a reflection coefficient of another calibration standard other than the first calibration standard on the basis of the open reflection coefficient and an admittance of the another calibration standard” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a step of measuring a reflection coefficient of the target object” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a step of calculating the dielectric constant of the target object on the basis of the first reflection coefficient, the reflection coefficient of the another calibration standard, the reflection coefficient of the target object, the admittance of the first calibration standard, and the admittance of the another calibration standard” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim is merely selecting data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B:
“A dielectric constant measurement method of measuring a dielectric constant of a target object by using a dielectric spectroscopy sensor, the dielectric constant measurement method” recited in the preamble does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a step of acquiring an admittance of a first calibration standard of which a dielectric constant is known” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a step of measuring a first reflection coefficient of the first calibration standard” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a step of calculating an open reflection coefficient in an ideal open state of the dielectric spectroscopy sensor on the basis of the first reflection coefficient and the admittance of the first calibration standard when the first calibration standard is installed on a measurement end surface of the dielectric spectroscopy sensor” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a step of calculating a reflection coefficient of another calibration standard other than the first calibration standard on the basis of the open reflection coefficient and an admittance of the another calibration standard” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a step of measuring a reflection coefficient of the target object” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a step of calculating the dielectric constant of the target object on the basis of the first reflection coefficient, the reflection coefficient of the another calibration standard, the reflection coefficient of the target object, the admittance of the first calibration standard, and the admittance of the another calibration standard” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 4:
A dielectric constant measurement method of measuring a dielectric constant of a target object by using a dielectric spectroscopy sensor, the dielectric constant measurement method comprising:
a step of acquiring an admittance of a first calibration standard of which a dielectric constant is known;
a step of measuring a first reflection coefficient of the first calibration standard;
a step of generating a first admittance calculation expression for calculating an admittance from a dielectric constant on the basis of the admittance of the first calibration standard and the dielectric constant;
a step of generating a second admittance calculation expression for calculating an admittance of the target object on the basis of the first reflection coefficient and an open reflection coefficient in an ideal open state of the dielectric spectroscopy sensor; and
a step of calculating the dielectric constant of the target object on the basis of a fact that an admittance calculated by using the first admittance calculation expression is equal to an admittance calculated by using the second admittance calculation expression.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“a step of acquiring an admittance of a first calibration standard of which a dielectric constant is known” is directed to mental step of data gathering.
“a step of measuring a first reflection coefficient of the first calibration standard” is directed to math.
“a step of generating a first admittance calculation expression for calculating an admittance from a dielectric constant on the basis of the admittance of the first calibration standard and the dielectric constant” is directed to math.
“a step of generating a second admittance calculation expression for calculating an admittance of the target object on the basis of the first reflection coefficient and an open reflection coefficient in an ideal open state of the dielectric spectroscopy sensor” is directed to math.
“a step of calculating the dielectric constant of the target object on the basis of a fact that an admittance calculated by using the first admittance calculation expression is equal to an admittance calculated by using the second admittance calculation expression” is directed to math.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “sensor and measurement” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of " a step of measuring a first reflection coefficient of the first calibration standard; a step of generating a first admittance calculation expression for calculating an admittance from a dielectric constant on the basis of the admittance of the first calibration standard and the dielectric constant; a step of generating a second admittance calculation expression for calculating an admittance of the target object on the basis of the first reflection coefficient and an open reflection coefficient in an ideal open state of the dielectric spectroscopy sensor; and a step of calculating the dielectric constant of the target object on the basis of a fact that an admittance calculated by using the first admittance calculation expression is equal to an admittance calculated by using the second admittance calculation expression” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“A dielectric constant measurement method of measuring a dielectric constant of a target object by using a dielectric spectroscopy sensor, the dielectric constant measurement method comprising” recited in the preamble does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a step of acquiring an admittance of a first calibration standard of which a dielectric constant is known” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a step of measuring a first reflection coefficient of the first calibration standard” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a step of generating a first admittance calculation expression for calculating an admittance from a dielectric constant on the basis of the admittance of the first calibration standard and the dielectric constant” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a step of generating a second admittance calculation expression for calculating an admittance of the target object on the basis of the first reflection coefficient and an open reflection coefficient in an ideal open state of the dielectric spectroscopy sensor” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a step of calculating the dielectric constant of the target object on the basis of a fact that an admittance calculated by using the first admittance calculation expression is equal to an admittance calculated by using the second admittance calculation expression” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim is merely selecting data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B:
“A dielectric constant measurement method of measuring a dielectric constant of a target object by using a dielectric spectroscopy sensor, the dielectric constant measurement method comprising” recited in the preamble does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a step of acquiring an admittance of a first calibration standard of which a dielectric constant is known” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a step of measuring a first reflection coefficient of the first calibration standard” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a step of generating a first admittance calculation expression for calculating an admittance from a dielectric constant on the basis of the admittance of the first calibration standard and the dielectric constant” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a step of generating a second admittance calculation expression for calculating an admittance of the target object on the basis of the first reflection coefficient and an open reflection coefficient in an ideal open state of the dielectric spectroscopy sensor” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“a step of calculating the dielectric constant of the target object on the basis of a fact that an admittance calculated by using the first admittance calculation expression is equal to an admittance calculated by using the second admittance calculation expression” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 6 is similar to claim 1 but recites a dielectric constant measurement system comprising: a dielectric spectroscopy sensor having a coaxial probe and a measurement end surface formed at the coaxial probe; and a measurement device connected to the dielectric spectroscopy sensor via a transmission line having the same characteristic impedance as a characteristic impedance of the coaxial probe, wherein the measurement device includes a measurement unit that applies a predetermined voltage to the dielectric spectroscopy sensor and measures a reflection coefficient of a measurement object on the basis of a reflection signal of the predetermined voltage, and a calculation unit that calculates an open reflection coefficient in an ideal open state of the dielectric spectroscopy sensor on the basis of a first reflection coefficient of a first calibration standard and an admittance of the first calibration standard when the first calibration standard is installed on a measurement end surface of the dielectric spectroscopy sensor that perform the steps as in claim 1. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. These elements are generic computing devices that perform generic functions. Using generic computer elements to perform an abstract idea does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Moreover, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also FairWarninglP, LLCv. latric SysInc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter”).
On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the hardware of claim 6 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Nor are we persuaded that the additional elements are anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional so as to impart subject matter eligibility to claim 6.
Regarding claim 2, “wherein the another calibration standard includes a metal”.
Regarding claims 3, 5, 8, “ wherein the first calibration standard includes water”.
Regarding claims 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12, the additional elements (i.e., A dielectric constant measurement program for causing a computer to execute the dielectric constant measurement method) are recited at a high level of generality, necessary, routine, or conventional to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. This amounts to nothing more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, which fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Additionally, using instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer “is not ‘enough’ to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 226.
Hence the claims 1-12 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Other Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hong et al. (KR 100925016 B1) disclose a dielectric constant measuring apparatus and method, and more particularly, it is possible to measure a reflection coefficient of a measurement target by transmitting a high frequency signal through an antenna and confirming a received signal that changes according to the change in dielectric constant, and the measured reflection coefficient The present invention relates to a dielectric constant measuring apparatus and method that can accurately measure dielectric constant remotely and can be realized by a compact radar sensor.
Grant et al. (“A critical study of the open-ended coaxial line sensor technique for RF and microwave complex permittivity measurements)(IDS record) disclose the open-ended coaxial line for convenient and non-intrusive complex permittivity measurements of lossy materials at RF and MW frequences; determination of the reflection coefficient at the sensor discontinuity plane allows one to derive the complex permittivity of a liquid or semi-solid sample terminating the line. The measurement configuration of the coaxial line sensor with a ground plane. The automatic network analyzer has so far been the instrument most frequently used to determine reflection coefficients at the sensor discontinuity plane. The complex permittivity has commonly been extracted from the reflection coefficient by modelling the fringing fields at the discontinuity as an equivalent lumped admittance. The equivalent circuit parameters of the sensor have been inferred from measurements on 'known' dielectrics and then used to calculate the complex permittivity of an unknown sample.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2275. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00am – 3:30pm Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN H LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights