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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. The title describes the general field of endeavor providing little information whether the document warrants further review. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. MPEP 606.01 guides that a descriptive title may result in slightly longer title, but the loss in brevity of title will be more than offset by the gain in its informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc.
Claim Objections
Claims 27 and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims depend on canceled claim 1. It appears that claims 27 and 32 are intended to depend on the first claim, claim 17, and will be examined as such. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
control unit in claims 17-32,
evaluation unit in claims 17-32,
collision protection device in claims 17 and 24-31
switchable dimming device in claim 26, and
electronic limiting device in claim 23
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 24 is drawn to the structure of a device and recites a result or a property ("two measuring points have a distance dmax of 140 mm <dmax < 600 mm"). However, it is not clear if the limitation is reciting a manner of using the device or if it is defining structure of the device. If it is defining the device in terms of structure, it would not be clear to a skilled artisan what structure is encompassed by the limitation.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “switchable dimming device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure describes its purpose and how it is used, but no disclosure could be found showing what the structure is such that it is clear what structure gives it the ability as to how it is switchable (on and off, replaced, etc.), how it dims, and how it prevents the propagation of reference light when thickness measurements are made. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 17-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,264,914. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the wording may be rearranged but both have the same scope. Please see below showing how the limitations of claim 17 and claim 1 of the reference patent correspond.
Application No. 18/840,843
US 12,264,914 - Claim 1
17. A device for measuring wafers, the device comprising:
1. A device for measuring wafers, the device comprising:
an optical coherence tomograph configured to generate a measuring light beam and to direct the measuring light beam onto the wafer via an optical system;
an optical coherence tomograph configured to generate a measuring light beam and to direct the measuring light beam onto a wafer via an optical system;
a scanning device including two scanning mirrors, which are mounted rotatably about exactly one axis, wherein the scanning device is configured to deflect the measuring light beam in two spatial directions;.
a scanning device configured to deflect the measuring light beam in two spatial directions; wherein the scanning device has exactly two scanning mirrors, which are each mounted rotatably about exactly one axis,
a control unit configured to control the scanning device in such a way that the measuring light beam scans the surface of the wafer (10) successively at a plurality of measuring points;
a control unit configured to control the scanning device in such a way that the measuring light beam scans the surface of the wafer successively at a plurality of measuring points; and
an evaluation unit configured to calculate at least one of distance values, thickness values, or both from interference signals provided by the optical coherence tomograph; and
an evaluation unit configured to calculate distance values and/or thickness values from interference signals provided by the optical coherence tomograph,
a collision protection device associated with at least one scanning mirror of the two scanning mirrors and configured to limit an angle of rotation of the at least one scanning mirror
a collision protection device is configured to limit angles of rotation of at least one scanning mirror of the two scanning mirrors to prevent the two scanning mirrors from colliding with one another.
Claim 18 corresponds to claim 7.
Claim 19 is obvious over claim 7 and as rubber and plastic are well known materials (Official notice is taken) for mechanically limiting movement of mirrors.
Claim 20 is obvious over claim 7. A rotating mirror would inherently be mounted with a holder and in order to mechanically stop the mirror, an artisan would have attached the mechanical stop to the mount also since the mirror would be moving relative to the mount and the stop would have to prevent relative movement.
Claim 21 corresponds to claim 7. This is implicit since the mirror rotates on an axis.
Claim 22 corresponds to claim 7. A conventional mirror has two sides and it would have been obvious to place the mechanical stop on a surface not being used as a mirror so that light is not obstructed.
Claim 23 corresponds to claim 1. As claim 1 recites that the control unit controls the scanning mirror, it controls the rotation angle by a control signal.
Claim 24 corresponds to claim 1 which recites the distance of the measuring points.
Claim 25 corresponds to claim 7 and the elements recited for the optical coherence tomograph are well known (Official notice is taken; also admitted at para. [0072] of publish application) and thus the OCT elements would have been obvious for nothing more than the expected ability to measure thickness.
Claim 26 corresponds to claim 3.
Claim 27 corresponds to claim 4.
Claim 28 corresponds to claim 5.
Claim 29 corresponds to claim 6.
Claim 30 corresponds to claim 9.
Claim 31 is obvious. See reason discussed for claim 23.
Claims 17-32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of copending Application No. 18/673,052 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the wording may be rearranged but both scope covered by claim 17 of the application is already covered by claim 12 of the reference application. Please see below showing how the limitations of claim 17 and claim 12 of the reference application correspond. The limitations of the dependent claims can be found respective dependent claims of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Application No. 18/840,843
US 12264914 - Claim 12
17. A device for measuring wafers, the device comprising:
1. A device for measuring wafers, the device comprising:
an optical coherence tomograph configured to generate a measuring light beam and to direct the measuring light beam onto the wafer via an optical system;
an optical coherence tomograph configured to generate a measuring light beam and to direct the measuring light beam onto a wafer via an optical system;
a scanning device including two scanning mirrors, which are mounted rotatably about exactly one axis,
wherein the scanning device is configured to deflect the measuring light beam in two spatial directions;.
a scanning device configured to deflect the measuring light beam in two spatial directions;
wherein the scanning device has exactly two scanning mirror which are each mounted rotatably about exactly one axis (claim 12), which are each mounted rotatably about exactly one axis,
a control unit configured to control the scanning device in such a way that the measuring light beam scans the surface of the wafer (10) successively at a plurality of measuring points;
a control unit configured to control the scanning device in such a way that the measuring light beam scans the surface of the wafer successively at a plurality of measuring points; and
an evaluation unit configured to calculate at least one of distance values, thickness values, or both from interference signals provided by the optical coherence tomograph; and
an evaluation unit configured to calculate distance values and/or thickness values from interference signals provided by the optical coherence tomograph,
a collision protection device associated with at least one scanning mirror of the two scanning mirrors and configured to limit an angle of rotation of the at least one scanning mirror
a collision protection device, which is configured to limit angles of rotation of the at least one scanning mirror. (claim 12)
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(s) 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, and 27, and 31
Claim(s) 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, and 27, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boehmer et al. (US 2019/0310463).
17. A device for measuring wafers, the device comprising (and claim 31 where the claimed steps flow from the elements listed below):
an optical coherence tomograph
(Para. [0118]:"the other detection device comprises an optical coherence tomograph") configured to generate a measuring light beam and to direct the measuring light beam onto the wafer via an optical system;
a scanning device including two scanning mirrors (Para. [0069]:"The XY-deflection device 22 comprises a first scanning mirror 26 and a second scanning mirror 28"), which are mounted rotatably about exactly one axis, wherein the scanning device is configured to deflect the measuring light beam in two spatial directions;
a control unit configured to control the scanning device (Para. [0114]:"The deflection unit 10 also preferably comprises one or more control units (not shown)…adjust or control the working distance") in such a way that the measuring light beam scans the surface of the wafer (10) successively at a plurality of measuring points;
an evaluation unit configured to calculate at least one of distance values, thickness values, or both from interference signals provided by the optical coherence tomograph (Para. [0052]:"The optical coherence tomograph allows detection and observation of existing height differences"); and
a collision protection device associated with at least one scanning mirror of the two scanning mirrors and configured to limit an angle of rotation of the at least one scanning mirror (Para. [0114]: "The deflection unit 10 also preferably comprises one or more control units (not shown)…adjust or control the working distance". Para. [0076]: "The size of the working area is obtained from the respective working distance and the angular range").
18 The device according to claim 17, wherein the collision device comprises at least one mechanical stop (A "mechanical stop" is not a particular structure. The scanning mirrors inherently have a mechanism that causes/limits them to scan an angular range and thus stops the mirrors to change direction or stop operating. Mechanical elements can also be seen in Figs 3 and 4 where beam 14 enters the deflection unit. These are reasonably taken to be mechanical stops).
20. The device according to claim 18, wherein the at least one scanning mirror is rotatably mounted on a scanning mirror holder, and wherein the collision protection device is attached to the scanning mirror holder. (inherent that something holds the mirrors in order to scan. See discussion for claim 18 above).
21. The device according to claim 18, wherein the mechanical stop acts on an axis of rotation of the at least one scanning mirror (see discussion for claim 18 above since the scanning mirrors rotate with respect to an axis) or on a projection formed on the axis of rotation.
23. The device according to claim 17, wherein the collision device comprises an electronic limiting device, which is configured to electronically prevent a supply of control signals to the at least one scanning mirror, and wherein the control signals would lead to a predetermined angle of rotation range being exceeded (Para. [0114]:"The deflection unit 10 also preferably comprises one or more control units (not shown)…adjust or control the working distance").
24. The device according to claim 17, wherein two measuring points have a distance dmax of 140 mm <dmax < 600 mm (As interpreted by the Examiner, the structure of Boehmer is identical as claimed and thus there is no reason why the apparatus of Boehmer is cannot be operated to measure points at distances as claimed).
27. The device according to claim 1, wherein the optical system has a field into which the measuring light beams are focused (Para. [0075]:"Via a change of the focal length it is possible to compensate for this change in the optical path length, so as to ensure that the operating beam 14 remains focused on the working surface 18 during the entire scanning process. In the case of a flat working area 18, this is also referred to as “plane-field compensation”. "), and wherein the evaluation unit is configured to correct the measured distance values by calculation in order to compensate for a curvature of the field (Para. [0075]:"The focusing device 16 can be controlled "; (Para. [0077]:"the invention comprises a control unit 70. ")).
31. See citations given for claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 19 and 22
Claim(s) 19 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boehmer as applied to claim 18 above and further in view of Official notice
Boehmer shows all the elements as discussed above for claim 17 but does not show the mechanism that holds the mirrors and causes the mirrors to scan and stop is made of plastic or rubber. Official notice is taken that the use of plastic to mount mirrors were well known. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use plastic as the mechanism discussed for claim 17 for the low cost and ability to hold optical elements.
As to claim 22, Boehmer appears to show the mechanism to be mounted on the back surfaces in Figures 3 and 4. Furthermore, there being a limited number of surfaces for mounting a mirror, the back surface would have been obvious so that the mirror can be scanned and not block the optical surface of the mirror.
Claim(s) 25 and 26
Claim(s) 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boehmer as applied to claim 17 above and further in view of Schönleber (US 2018/0164089).
Boehmer shows all the elements as recited in claim 17 but does not show the element of the optical coherence tomographic device ("OCT" hereafter). Schönleber shows an optical coherence tomographic device (Figs. 1 and 13) comprising:
a light source (light source 3);
a beam splitter (beam splitter 8) configured to split light generated by the light source into the measuring light beam and a reference light beam;
a reference arm (reference arm 12 or reference arm for calibration "calibration branch 59") for guiding the reference light beam;
an object arm (object arm 11) utilizing the optical system and the scanning device for guiding the measuring light beam (this shown by Boehmer); and
a detector (spectrometer 26) configured to generate the interference signals from a superposition of the reference light beam guided in the reference arm with a portion of the measuring light beam reflected at the wafer.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use the OCT of Schönleber for nothing more than to meet Boehmer's call for an OCT to be used.
26. The device according to claim 25, further comprising a switchable dimming device (as interpreted by the Examiner, Schönleber shows an optical switch in the reference arm; (Para. [0251]: "The calibration branch 59 is configured such that it can be switched on and off by for example a movable diaphragm arranged between the beam splitter 8′ and the reference plate 59 ") arranged in the reference arm and configured to prevent the propagation of the reference light beam in the reference arm when thickness measurements are made.
Claim(s) 28 and 29
Claim(s) 28 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boehmer as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Official notice.
As to claim 28, Boehmer does not show the use of a look-up table to make. Official notice is taken that storing correction values was well known in the art. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use a correction table stored in the evaluation unit in order to quickly use the values to adjust the focusing unit
As to claim 29, Boehmer does not show the correction for different wavelengths. Official notice is taken that it was well known to consider wavelength of light in order to adjust focusing parameters because different wavelengths experience different refraction angles through refractive optics. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious use values in the stored table that take into consideration the wavelengths being used in order to optimize the function of the focusing unit.
29. (New) The device according to claim 28, wherein correction values for different operating wavelengths ranges are stored in the correction table.
Claim(s) 30
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boehmer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barth et al. (US 2011/0149245).
Boehmer does not show the use an anamorphic optical element.
Barth shows an OCT where anamorphic optics is used to shape the measurement beam into planes to be linear with the object being measured. Para. [0021]: "anamorphic optics based on cylindrical lenses focus the measurement beam into the planes of the relevant eye structures in a linear manner".
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use an anamorphic optical element in order to shape the measurement beam to the plane of the object being measured.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hwa Andrew S Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5:30pm.
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, Michelle Iacolleti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/Hwa Andrew Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877