The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 62 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by “Ultra-high-Q UV microring resonators based on a single-crystalline AlN platform” by Liu et al, Optica, vol. 5, No. 10, pp. 1279 – 1282, 2018 (hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 62, Liu describes (Fig. 1; Abstract; pp. 1279 – 1281) a (ultraviolet) light source, comprising:
a light emitting element (700 – 100 nm Ti:sapphire laser) that is configured to generate light of a first (pump) frequency (e.g., corresponding to a wavelength of 700 nm); and
a nonlinear optical output coupling element (at least 2 cascaded ring resonators, as shown in Figs. 1b and 1e) that is configured to receive the light of the first (pump) frequency from the light emitting element, generate light of a second (second harmonic) frequency from the light of the first (pump/fundamental) frequency, and outcouple (to the bus waveguide, as shown in Fig. 1e) the light of the second frequency as output light at a plurality of positions (e.g., 2 positions in Fig. 1e).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 2, 4, 5, 11 – 16, 19, 21, 22, and 25 – 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sayyah et al (US 2016/0248225 A1) in view of “Integrated GaN photonic circuits on silicon (100) for second harmonic generation” by Xiong et al, OPTICS EXPRESS, vol. 19, No. 11, pp. 10462 – 10470, 2011 (hereinafter Xiong).
Regarding claim 1, Sayyah discloses (Figs. 1A and 6; Abstract; para. 0041 – 0062 and 0076) an ultraviolet (UV) light source (Abstract), comprising:
a light emitting element 36 (GaN DBR master laser diode) that is configured to generate light of a first frequency (“a single-mode GaN-based master laser diode 36 emitting at the fundamental (blue) wavelength” at para. 0047; “in the blue region (440-480 nm)” at para. 0041);
a nonlinear optical element 16 that is configured to receive the light of the first frequency from the light emitting element and generate far-UVC light of a second (doubled) frequency from the light of the first frequency (“integrated nonlinear optical crystal (NLC) 16 for frequency multiplying of the fundamental mode in the blue region (440-480 nm) to generate UV in the 220-240 nm wavelength range” at para. 0041).
Sayyah teaches that the exit facet 32 of the nonlinear optical element 16 is configured to selectively outcouple the far-UVC light 50 (UV-C beamlets 50 in Fig. 1A; note: wavelengths within 220 – 240 nm meet the definition of far-UVC provided at para. 0089) from the nonlinear optical element as output light 50 (“The NLC 16 has on its exit facet 32 a first coating with high reflectivity (HR) for the fundamental (blue) mode and anti-reflectivity (AR) for the second harmonic (UV), which results in the fundamental mode being reflected from the first coating and the UV being transmitted through the first coating” at para. 0046).
Sayyah discloses only embodiments with a nonlinear optical element 16 that is implemented a bulk-optical element that sends output light 50 directly into free space. Sayyah does not each that a nonlinear optical element for second harmonic generation can be implemented as an integrated-optic resonator element, Xiong describes (Fig. 3; Abstract; Section 3 and 6) a nonlinear optical element for second harmonic generation that is implemented as an integrated-optic resonator element (micro-ring resonator) that outputs the generated second harmonic radiation to an output coupling element (the lower/output waveguide that is optically coupled to the micro-ring resonator and terminated by grating couplers, as shown in Fig. 3a) that is configured to selectively outcouple the generated second harmonic radiation from the nonlinear optical element as output light.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a bulk-optical element in Sayyah can be modified, in accordance with the teachings of Xiong, to become an integrated-optic resonator element followed by to an output coupling element. The motivation for using an integrated-optic resonator element is that optical power density can be greatly increased in optical waveguides (compared to bulk optics) so that the SHG conversion efficiency (proportional to the optical power) can also be increased. The use of multi-pass resonant interaction within the micro-ring resonator further increases efficiency. Additionally, an integrated-optic waveguide resonator element followed by an output coupling waveguide element provides a monolithically-integrated portion of the US light source, which furthers the goal of Sayyah of achieving a compact integrated UV light source. Yet another advantage of using optical waveguides is that better isolation/discrimination of the generated second harmonic radiation from the (residual) pump radiation (due to their different coupling efficiencies to the input and output waveguide of the micro-ring resonator; “The waveguide width of the output waveguide is optimized by finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) simulations to provide optimal out-coupling characteristics between the fundamental mode at 1560 nm and the second harmonic (SH) at 780 nm. The resulting reduced width of the drop waveguide of 500 nm is in the vicinity of the cut-off width for the pump light at 1560 nm, thus preventing transfer of the pump light into the drop port” at last para. of Section 3 of Xiong).
In light of the foregoing analysis, the Sayyah – Xiong combination teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the recited limitations.
As an aside, it is also noted that the integrated-optic waveguide resonator element of the Sayyah – Xiong combination is to use a material transparent to far-UVC, e.g., BBO (para. 0052 of Sayyah).
Regarding claim 2, the Sayyah – Xiong combination considers that the output coupling element (the output/lower waveguide with terminating grating couplers) is configured to selectively outcouple the far-UVC light into at least one direction that is different than a direction of propagation (along the upper/input waveguide) of the light of the (first fundamental/pump) frequency to provide the output (SHG) light,
optionally wherein the output (SHG) light is substantially free of the light of the first (fundamental/pump) frequency (“The waveguide width of the output waveguide is optimized by finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) simulations to provide optimal out-coupling characteristics between the fundamental mode at 1560 nm and the second harmonic (SH) at 780 nm. The resulting reduced width of the drop waveguide of 500 nm is in the vicinity of the cut-off width for the pump light at 1560 nm, thus preventing transfer of the pump light into the drop port” at last para. of Section 3 of Xiong)
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the Sayyah – Xiong combination considers that the nonlinear optical element is or comprises an optical cavity (micro-ring resonator in Fig. 3a of Xiong) that is at least partially resonant at the first (first fundamental/pump) frequency, the nonlinear optical element has a ring configuration (closed curve shape) that defines the optical cavity.
Regarding claim 11, the Sayyah – Xiong combination considers that the output coupling element comprises at least one of:
a facet having a refractive index that is configured to selectively outcouple the far-UVC light in a first direction (as in Sayyah); or
a grating having a diffraction order that is configured to selectively outcouple the far-UVC light in a second direction, different than the first direction (as in Xiong).
Regarding claim 12, the Sayyah – Xiong combination considers (Fig. 3a of Xiong) that the nonlinear optical element (micro-ring resonator) and the output coupling element (the output /lower waveguide with grating couplers at its ends) are integrated in a same output element that is configured to outcouple the far-UVC light at a plurality of positions (e.g., 2 positions in Fig. 3a).
Regarding claim 13, the Sayyah – Xiong combination considers (Fig. 3a of Xiong; last para. of Section 3) that the light of the first (fundamental/pump) frequency is not present after the output coupling elements, which means that the UV light source is configured to provide the output (SHG) light substantially free of phase matching between the light of the first frequency and the far-UVC light of the second frequency.
Regarding claim 14, the Sayyah – Xiong combination considers (Fig. 3a of Xiong; last para. of Section 3) that the nonlinear optical element (micro-ring resonator) is configured to provide phase matching between the far-UVC light of the second (SHG) frequency and the light of the first (fundamental/pump) frequency (Fig. 4a; 1st and 2nd para. of Section 4 of Xiong).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the Sayyah – Xiong combination considers the light emitting element is a laser comprising a lasing cavity (created by DBR gratings of the GaN DBR master LD 36 and DBR gratings 34, as shown in Fig. 1A of Sayyah; para. 0039 and 0041), wherein the laser 36 is configured to generate the light of the first (fundamental/pump) frequency, optionally wherein the laser 36 comprises a Group III nitride-based material (GaN; para. 0047), wherein the light emitting element further comprises one or more optical resonators (additional resonators formed by DBR gratings 34 and the facet 30 and controlled by the master laser 36) that are configured to reflect the light of the first (fundamental/pump) frequency and are arranged at first and second ends of the lasing cavity.
Regarding claim 19, while the Sayyah – Xiong combination does not expressly teach the use of pulsed pump sources, the Examiner takes official notice that the use of pulsed pump sources with saturable absorbers in lasing cavities are well known in the art and commonly used for second harmonic generation is. Pulsed pump sources would be a obvious choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art and have the benefit if high peak power levels which greatly increases the efficiency of nonlinear processes, such as second harmonic generation.
Regarding claim 21, the Sayyah – Xiong combination considers (Fig. 1A of Sayyah) that the contemplated UV light source can further comprise a monitor element 28 (monitor photodetectors at the output) that is configured to measure a property of the output light and generate a feedback signal to a controller that is configured to operate the light emitting element and/or the tuning mechanism (para. 0043, 0044, and 0048).
Regarding claim 25 and 26, both Sayyah (para. 0046) and Xiong (Abstract) teach that the second frequency comprises the second harmonic of the first (fundamental/pump) frequency, wherein the first frequency corresponds to a first wavelength in a range of about 440 nanometers (nm) to 480 nm, and the second frequency corresponds to a second wavelength in a range of about 220 nm to 240 nm (“integrated nonlinear optical crystal (NLC) 16 for frequency multiplying of the fundamental mode in the blue region (440-480 nm) to generate UV in the 220-240 nm wavelength range” at para. 0041 of Sayyah). Thus, the Sayyah – Xiong combination considers ranges that at least overlap with the recited ranges, and hence, a prima facie cases of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 27, the Sayyah – Xiong combination considers that the light emitting element and the nonlinear optical element comprise respective elements that are arranged on a non-native substrate (e.g., a Si substrate, as shown in Fig. 1 of Xiong).
Regarding claim 28, the Sayyah – Xiong combination considers that the light emitting element and the nonlinear optical element are integrated (by being formed layer by layer) in a monolithic structure (a unitary layered structure formed layer by layer), as detailed above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 29, the Sayyah – Xiong combination considers that the contemplated UV light source comprises an array including a plurality of the light emitting element and the nonlinear optical element: each laser (light emitting element) of the laser array in Sayyah provides pump light to a respective micro-ring resonator (nonlinear optical element) of an array of micro-ring resonator.
Regarding claim 30, the teachings of Sayyah and Xiong combine (see the arguments and motivation for combining, as provided above for claim 1) to teach expressly or render obvious all of the recited limitations, as detailed above for claim 1. Specifically, the Sayyah – Xiong combination considers a (far-UVC) light source, comprising:
a monolithic (a unitary layered structure formed layer by layer) structure comprising a light emitting element (e.g., GaN based, as in Sayyah) that is configured to generate light of a first (fundamental/ pump) frequency, and a nonlinear optical element (micro-ring resonator, as in Xiong) that is configured to receive the light of the first (fundamental/ pump) frequency from the light emitting element and generate light of a second (second harmonic) frequency from the light of the first (fundamental/ pump) frequency.
Claims 3, 6 – 8, 20, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sayyah in view of Xiong, and further in view of Liu.
Regarding claim 3, the Sayyah – Xiong combination considers BBO as a suitable/workable material for the nonlinear optical element (para. 0052 of Sayyah), Liu suggests (Fig. 1; Abstract) the use of aluminum nitride (AlN) which is transparent down to 200 nm (at para. on p. 1279).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the nonlinear optical element of the Sayyah – Xiong combination can be formed of AlN, as a suitable/workable material that is described by Liu, has a low wavelength end of transparency down to UVC and amendable to monolithic integration with GaN-based light emitting elements (as taught by Sayyah; para. 0046 – 0048).
Regarding claim 6, the Sayyah – Xiong – Liu combination considers that the nonlinear optical element comprises a plurality of nonlinear optical elements (2 ring resonator in Fig. 1e of Liu) that are arranged to receive (via a common bus waveguide and a UV lens) the light of the first (pump) frequency from the light emitting element (pump laser).
Regarding claim 7, the Sayyah – Xiong – Liu combination considers that the contemplated UV light source further comprises:
an input coupling element (a bus waveguide in Fig. 1e of Liu) that is configured to receive the light of the first (pump) frequency from the light emitting element (pump laser) (via a UV lens), wherein the plurality of nonlinear optical elements (2 ring resonators made of AlN) are arranged along the input coupling element (as seen in Fig. 1e).
Regarding claim 8, the Sayyah – Xiong – Liu combination considers that respective ones of the nonlinear optical elements (2 ring resonators made of AlN, as shown in Fig. 1e of Liu) comprise different dimensions/radii (“we utilize two cascaded microrings with slightly varied radii to provide resonant features distinguishable from the transmittance background” at para. bridging pp. 1279 – 1280 of Liu), wherein the output coupling element comprises a plurality of output coupling elements (a 2x2 directional/evanescent coupler is formed between each ring resonator and the bus waveguide) that are respectively configured to selectively outcouple the far-UVC light from the respective ones of the nonlinear optical elements.
Regarding claim 20, the Sayyah – Xiong – Liu combination considers at least one tuning mechanism (dimensions/radii of the ring resonator) that is configured to adjust one or more operating characteristics (resonant frequencies) of the nonlinear element based on the light of the first (pump) frequency to optimize nonlinear interaction/conversion within the resonant ring cavity).
Regarding claim 23, the Sayyah – Xiong combination considers (Fig. 3a of Xiong) that the output coupling element can comprise a plurality of output coupling elements (e.g., 2 grating couplers) that are configured to outcouple the far-UVC light in respective directions, to provide the output light with a desired far field pattern (e.g., two individual/non-overlapping outputs).
Regarding claim 24, the Sayyah – Xiong – Liu combination considers resonant frequencies of a ring resonator are determined by its radius. The Examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art that temperature also affects the resonant frequencies of a ring resonator and that compensation feedback loops with monitoring can be used to compensate for variations caused by temperature changes.
Claims 1, 4, 9, 10, 15, 17 – 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloom (US 2008/0247427 A1) in view of Sayyah.
Regarding claim 1, Bloom discloses (Fig. 3; Abstract; para. 0024 and 25) a light source with intra-cavity harmonic generation (Abstract), comprising:
a light emitting element 310, 320 (a surface emitting diode laser; para. 0024) that is configured to generate light of a first (pump) frequency;
a nonlinear optical element 315 that is configured to receive the light of the first frequency from the light emitting element and generate light of a second (doubled) frequency from the light of the first frequency (“an extended vertical cavity, surface emitting diode laser with an intra-cavity second harmonic generation section … Nonlinear optical structure 315 and output coupler 320 are placed so that a laser cavity is formed with the nonlinear optical structure 315 lying within the cavity” at para. 0024),
and an output coupling element 330 (dichroic beam splitter; para. 0024) that is configured to selectively outcouple the light of the second (doubled) frequency from the nonlinear optical element 315 as output light 255 (para. 0024).
While Bloom does not specify suitable/workable materials for the light emitting element 300 (laser diode) and the nonlinear optical element 315 (nonlinear crystal), Sayyah discloses (Figs. 1A and 6; Abstract; para. 0041 – 0062 and 0076) an ultraviolet (UV) light source (Abstract), comprising:
a light emitting element 36 (GaN DBR master laser diode) that is based on GaN and configured to generate light of a first frequency (“a single-mode GaN-based master laser diode 36 emitting at the fundamental (blue) wavelength” at para. 0047; “in the blue region (440-480 nm)” at para. 0041);
a nonlinear optical element 16 that is made of a BBO nonlinear crystal (para. 0052) configured to receive the light of the first frequency from the light emitting element and generate far-UVC light of a second (doubled) frequency from the light of the first frequency (“integrated nonlinear optical crystal (NLC) 16 for frequency multiplying of the fundamental mode in the blue region (440-480 nm) to generate UV in the 220-240 nm wavelength range” at para. 0041).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the light emitting element 300 (laser diode) and the nonlinear optical element 315 (nonlinear crystal) in Bloom can be formed of GaN and BBO, as disclosed by Sayyah, so as to enable an UV light source capable of generating far-UVC light (note: wavelengths within 220 – 240 nm (at para. 0041 of Sayyah) meet the definition of far-UVC provided at para. 0089).
In light of the foregoing analysis, the Bloom – Sayyah combination teaches expressly or renders obvious all of the recited limitations.
Regarding claim 4, the Bloom – Sayyah combination considers that the nonlinear optical element is or comprises an optical cavity that is at least partially resonant at the first (pump) frequency (due to reflectors in 310 and 320; para. 0024 of Bloom).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the Bloom – Sayyah combination considers the (vertical) optical cavity (formed by reflectors in 310 and 320; para. 0024 of Bloom) includes the light emitting element (within the layers of 310; para. 0024) and the nonlinear optical element 315 therein (“Surface emitting laser arrays with intra-cavity harmonic generation are coupled to an optical system that extracts harmonic light in both directions from an intra-cavity nonlinear optical material” in the Abstract; “Nonlinear optical structure 315 and output coupler 320 are placed so that a laser cavity is formed with the nonlinear optical structure 315 lying within the cavity” at para. 0024 of Bloom, emphasis added), wherein the optical cavity has a linear shape (Fig. 3 of Bloom).
Regarding claim 15, the Bloom – Sayyah combination considers that the light emitting element is a laser comprising a lasing cavity, wherein the laser is configured to generate the light of the first (pump) frequency, optionally wherein the laser comprises a Group III nitride-based material (GaN).
Regarding claim 17, the Bloom – Sayyah combination considers (Fig. 3 of Bloom) that the nonlinear optical element 315 is configured to receive the light of the first (pump) frequency from an intra-cavity portion between first (bottom) and second (top) ends of the lasing cavity (formed by reflectors in 310 and 320; para. 0024 of Bloom).
Regarding claim 18, the use of an additional intra-cavity nonlinear element(s) (in addition to 315) would be well within ordinary skill in the art of lasers (which is noted as being high) and can provide improved conversion efficiency and/or multiple generated frequencies.
Regarding claim 19, while the Bloom – Sayyah combination does not expressly teach the use of pulsed pump sources, the Examiner takes official notice that the use of pulsed pump sources with saturable absorbers in lasing cavities are well known in the art and commonly used for second harmonic generation is. Pulsed pump sources would be a obvious choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art and have the benefit if high peak power levels which greatly increases the efficiency of nonlinear processes, such as second harmonic generation.
Regarding claim 22, the Bloom – Sayyah combination renders obvious (Fig. 3 of Bloom) that the contemplated UV light source can further comprises:
a substrate 305 having the light emitting element 310, the nonlinear optical element 315, and the output coupling element 330 on a (top) surface thereof,
wherein two or more of the light emitting element, the nonlinear optical element, the output coupling element, or connecting waveguides therebetween overlap in a (vertical) direction perpendicular to the (top) surface of the substrate 305.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masa et al (US 2011/0019266 A1).
Regarding claim 42, Masa discloses (Figs. 1 and 2; Abstract; para. 0050 – 0053) an ultraviolet (UV) light source, comprising:
a nonlinear optical element 20 (in Fig. 1) comprising aluminum nitride (AlN) (Abstract; para. 0053; claims 3 and 4) that is configured to receive a light of a first frequency w1 and generate UVC light (e.g. at a wavelength of 210 nm; para. 0001 and 0024) of a second frequency w2 (second harmonic) from the light of the first frequency.
While Masa does not expressly identify a light emitting element providing the light of the first frequency, such element (e.g., a laser, as a type mentioned at para. 0002 – 0005) would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as an optical pump element needed to generate the light of the first (pump) frequency.
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Sayyah.
Regarding claim 52, Liu describes (Fig. 1; Abstract; pp. 1279 – 1281) an ultraviolet (UV) light source, comprising:
a light emitting element (700 – 100 nm Ti:sapphire laser) that is configured to generate light of a first (pump) frequency (corresponding to a wavelength of 700 nm); and
an optical cavity comprising a nonlinear optical element (at least 2 cascaded ring resonators, as shown in Fig. 1e) that is configured to receive the light of the first (pump) frequency from the light emitting element and generate UV light (at 390 nm) of a second (hormonic) frequency from the light of the first (fundamental/pump) frequency,
wherein the optical cavity (ring resonators) is at least partially resonant at the first frequency (“we demonstrate a record quality factor of 2.1 × 105 … at 390 nm” in the Abstract).
The light emitting element (700 – 100 nm Ti:sapphire laser) has a shortest first (pump) frequency limited to a wavelength of about 700 nm so that the shortest wavelength of the generated second harmonic is limited at 390 nm. However, Liu states that the optical cavity is formed on AlN and the latter is transparent down to 200 nm.
Liu generally renders obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the described UV source of Liu can be configured to reach shorter UV wavelengths by using a pump source with a shorter wavelength. In this regard, Sayyan discloses a GaN laser source that outputs a pump wavelength of 440 – 480 nm (para. 0041) and is used for pump a nonlinear optical elements in order to generate second harmonic of the pump radiation.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the UV source of Liu can be configured to reach shorter UV wavelengths by using a pump source with a shorter wavelength, such as a GaN laser source with a pump wavelength of 440 – 480 nm, as taught by Sayyah. In this case, the second harmonic has a wavelength of 220 – 240 nm, that is far-UVC.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Second harmonic generation in phase matched aluminum nitride waveguides and micro-ring resonators” by Pernice et al, APPLIED PHYSICS LETTERS, vol. 100, paper 223501, 2012 describes (Figs. 1 – 3) a ring resonator for second harmonic generation, the resonator formed in AlN.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT TAVLYKAEV whose telephone number is (571)270-5634. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am - 6:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, William Kraig can be reached on (571)272-8660. 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.
/ROBERT TAVLYKAEV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights