DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Preliminary Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the preliminary amendment filed on 06/05/2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains at least one of the phrases that can be implied, such as the phrase “the invention relates to”. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the title is not descriptive. A new title that would include the inventive feature of the claimed invention is respectfully requested..
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-16, 18-19, 21-28, and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “a heat or cooling element” without disclose the structural cooperation between the heating or cooling element and the signal transducer or the electric circuit. The claim describes a heating or cooling element “for heating or cooling the layer” without disclosing the actual physical cooperative structure between the element and the layer. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the structural cooperation between the heating or cooling element and the signal transducer or the electronic circuit.
The claim further describes the heating or cooling element “with adjustable temperature settings” without disclosing whether the element, the circuit, or something else is configured to adjust the temperature setting. The claim is also incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements (see MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted element is: the device configured to adjust the temperature setting. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites the broad recitation of “a thickness of less than 5 μm” and also the narrower range of “from 50 to 300 nm”. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites the broad recitation of “an average diameter of below 10 nm” and also the narrower range of “of below 10 nm” and “of below 2 nm”. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites the method steps of “increasing or decreasing the temperature”, “measuring from the signal transducer”, “determining” without disclosing the devices for increasing or decreasing the temperature, for measuring, nor for determining. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements (see MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the devices configured to increase or decrease the temperature, “measuring from the signal transducer”, and/or “determining”. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claims 4, 6-16, 21, 23-28, 30-31 are rejected as being dependent on the rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9-10, 13-16, 18, 22-23, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Allen (Pat. No. US 9,823,211) (hereafter Allen).
Regarding claim 1, Allen teaches a gas sensor for detecting one or a plurality of volatile compounds in a gas, the sensor comprising:
a signal transducer comprising a layer (i.e., coating 302 of gas adsorbing material of the preconcentrator module 204) (see Fig. 3D) comprising nanopores (i.e., the gas adsorbent material is a molecular sieve, porous carbon network, mesoporous silicon or silicon dioxide, zeolite, structured nanomaterial with high surface area, metal-organic framework, or porous or gas-absorbing polymer) (see Column 5, lines 23-34) wherein the gas has access to the nanopores in the layer (i.e., via a single common air input port) (see Column 5, lines 6-22),
a heating or cooling element (i.e., electrical heater 306) (see Fig. 3D), with adjustable temperature settings (i.e., controlling the temperature of the heater arrays can be achieved by controlling the current in the heaters. Additionally, the temperature can be estimated by measuring the resistance of the heater itself (not the sensor electrodes), as most heater materials have a temperature dependent resistance including metals and semiconductors. By measuring the resistance of the heater, it is possible to provide a closed-loop control of the module temperature) (see Column 10, line 61, to Column 11, line 8), for heating or cooling the layer comprising the nanopores (i.e., the adsorption can be thermodynamically reversible below the melting temperature of the gas adsorbent material and its heater) (see Column 5, lines 23-34), and
an electronic circuit (i.e., interdigitated electrodes 404 of gas sensor 206 are connected to a control system via electrical lines 220 and 222) (see Fig. 3D), monitoring a time-dependent and a temperature-dependent signal generated by the signal transducer upon adsorption or release of a compound from the nanopores in the layer (i.e., rate of increase (reactivity) and decrease (sticking coefficient) provides a means for chemical selectivity. However, the amount of time required to scan a single sensor through the entire useful temperature range of the sensor can be limited by a surface equilibration time that can make such a temperature scan require up to several minutes to complete. With the gas sensor and preconcentrator modules configured as arrays, parallel collection of temperature-dependent responsivity is enabled. When the number of elements in the array is limited by power consumption or size constraints, incrementing or decrementing the temperature of the sensor arrays enables an increase of the effective temperature resolution by interpolation. Additionally, small temperature changes can equilibrate faster than larger ones. A small increment/decrement step can also be considered to provide a response and derivative response at each temperature point) (see Column 10, line 61, to Column 11, line 8).
Regarding claim 4, Allen teaches that the layer comprising nanopores is a zeolite or a porous carbon or a metal-organic framework (MOF) (i.e., the gas adsorbent material is a molecular sieve, porous carbon network, mesoporous silicon or silicon dioxide, zeolite, structured nanomaterial with high surface area, metal-organic framework, or porous or gas-absorbing polymer) (see Column 5, lines 23-34)
Regarding claim 6, Allen teaches that the heating element and the layer comprising the nanopores are separated by a heat conductive material (i.e., heater 306 for the preconcentrator can be on the bottom surface of the substrate 407, which would be a heat conductive material) (see Fig. 3D).
Regarding claim 9, Allen teaches that the heating element is an ohmic heater (i.e., controlling the temperature of the heater arrays can be achieved by controlling the current in the heaters. Additionally, the temperature can be estimated by measuring the resistance of the heater itself (not the sensor electrodes), as most heater materials have a temperature dependent resistance including metals and semiconductors) (see Column 10, line 61, to Column 11, line 8)
Regarding claim 10, Allen teaches that the signal transducer is an electronic, capacitive, optical, or gravimetric signal transducer (i.e., the gas sensor modules includes individual elements or arrays of electrochemical sensors, capacitive sensors with selective adsorbent coatings, gravimetric sensors such as MEMS resonators with selectively absorbing coatings, flame ionization detectors, ionic polymer-coated floating gate transistor detectors, color-change chemical sensors and readout imager, optical absorption-based sensor such as a non-dispersive infrared (IR) sensor, or the like) (see Column 6, lines 1-11).
Regarding claim 13, Allen teaches that the signal transducer is a gravimetric signal transducer wherein the layer comprising the nanopores is positioned, and is in contact with, one or more mechanical resonators of which the resonant frequency or amplitude can be monitored (i.e., gravimetric sensors such as MEMS resonators with selectively absorbing coatings) (see Column 6, lines 1-11).
Regarding claim 14, Allen teaches that the gravimetric transducer operates in a static or resonant mode (i.e., gravimetric sensors such as MEMS resonators with selectively absorbing coatings) (see Column 6, lines 1-11).
Regarding claim 15, Allen teaches the gravimetric transducer is a cantilever or a coupled resonator (i.e., gravimetric sensors such as MEMS resonators with selectively absorbing coatings) (see Column 6, lines 1-11).
Regarding claim 16, Allen teaches that the layer comprising the nanopores is in direct contact with the transducer, or wherein the layer comprising the nanopores and the signal transducer are spatially separated (i.e., adjoining and separated modules configurations of the gas sensor systems 100A-B and 200A-B) (see Fig. 1A-2B)
Regarding claim 18, Allen teaches that the signal transducer is a metal oxide semiconductor sensor (i.e., a gas sensor system includes a metal oxide gas sensor module) (see Column 6, lines 21-32).
Regarding claim 22, Allen teaches a method for determining the presence and/or quantity of a plurality of volatile compounds in a gas comprising the steps of:
(a) introducing a gas (i.e., via a single common air input port) (see Column 5, lines 6-22) into a sensor whereby compounds in the gas can adsorb in the nanopores of the layer comprising nanopores (i.e., the gas adsorbent material is a molecular sieve, porous carbon network, mesoporous silicon or silicon dioxide, zeolite, structured nanomaterial with high surface area, metal-organic framework, or porous or gas-absorbing polymer) (see Column 5, lines 23-34) wherein the gas has access to the nanopores in the layer (i.e., via a single common air input port) (see Column 5, lines 6-22),
(b) decreasing or increasing the temperature of the layer comprising nanopores (i.e., controlling the temperature of the heater arrays can be achieved by controlling the current in the heaters. Additionally, the temperature can be estimated by measuring the resistance of the heater itself (not the sensor electrodes), as most heater materials have a temperature dependent resistance including metals and semiconductors. By measuring the resistance of the heater, it is possible to provide a closed-loop control of the module temperature) (see Column 10, line 61, to Column 11, line 8), thereby releasing adsorbed compounds from the nanopores upon heating (i.e., the adsorption can be thermodynamically reversible below the melting temperature of the gas adsorbent material and its heater) (see Column 5, lines 23-34), or adsorbing compounds in the nanopores upon cooling,
(c) measuring from the signal transducer the temperature-dependent and time dependent release and/or adsorption of the compounds from or to the nanopores (i.e., preconcentrator adsorbs gas species and then, generally, releases the species according to volatility of each species. Release of the gas species from the preconcentrator may be a function of the amount of work done on the preconcentrator, where, for example, such work can be measured by heater power multiplied by time) (see Column 12, lines 57-65),
(d) determining based on the measurements of the transducer the presence (i.e., a composite curve for two gas species is obtained at a first temperature for each sensor and then at a second temperature for each sensor) (see Column 12, line 28, to Column 13, line 50) and/or concentration of at least two volatile compounds in the gas.
Regarding claim 23, Allen teaches that step (b) the temperature of the layer comprising nanopores is increased, thereby releasing the adsorbed compounds from the nanopores (i.e., a heater element can be used to incrementally increase or decrease the temperature of each MOX sensor in the array of MOX sensors to a second temperature) (see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 26, Allen teaches that the adsorption or the release of the compounds is monitored on multiple layers comprising nanopores (i.e., by gas sensor array 206) (see Fig. 5A-B).
Regarding claim 28, Allen teaches that the gas introduced in step (a) comprises outside ambient air (i.e., ambient air) (see Column 6, lines 12-20), air within a building, or exhaled animal breath or exhaled human breath.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-3, 7-8, 27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen (Pat. No. US 9,823,211) (hereafter Allen)
Regarding claim 2, Allen as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the layer comprising nanopores has a thickness of less than 5 μm or from 50 to 300 nm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected appropriate dimensions for the sensing layer according to desired specification and budget. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)) and that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)).
Regarding claim 3, Allen as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the nanopores in the layer comprising nanopores have an average diameter of below 10 nm, of below 10 nm, or of below 2 nm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected appropriate dimensions for the sensing layer according to desired specification and budget. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)) and that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)).
Regarding claim 7, Allen as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the heat conductive material has a heat conductivity of at least 0.3 W/mK. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the substrate from a suitable material having desirable heat conductivity according to desired specification and budget. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)) and that to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 8, Allen as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the heat conductive material is a non-electrically conductive material selected from silicon nitride, silicon oxide, silicon carbide, and a ceramic. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a suitable material according to desired specification and budget. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 27, Allen as disclosed above doe not directly or implicitly teach that the gas introduced in step (a) contains up to 50% (v/v) up to 75% (v/v) or up to 100% (v/v) water vapor. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed VOC detection in any environment regardless of the water vapor content. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)).
Regarding claim 30, Allen as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the method determines the presence and/or concentration of one or more 1-propanol, 1-butanol, acetone pentane and hexane in the gas. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added specific functionalization to the sensor in order to detect and discriminate any prescribed VOC. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07).
Claims 11, 19, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen (Pat. No. US 9,823,211) (hereafter Allen) in view of Bradley et al. (Pat. No. US 9,103,775) (hereafter Bradley).
Regarding claim 11, Allen as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the capacitive signal transducer comprises a bottom heat conductive layer, and a top gas permeable conductive layer, and the layer comprising nanopores is positioned between the bottom layer and the top gas permeable conductive layer. However, Bradley teaches that the capacitive signal transducer comprises a bottom heat conductive layer (i.e., a dielectric isolation layer 74 disposed upon a base 73) (see Fig. 3), and a top gas permeable conductive layer (i.e., additional functionalization 78 may be included in sensor 71 (e.g., an absorbent filter, a selectively permeable polymer layer, a selectively reactive or binding species, etc., to enhance selectivity, sensitivity and/or signal strength)) (see Fig. 3), and the layer comprising nanopores is positioned between the bottom layer and the top gas permeable conductive layer (i.e., nanotube network 72) (see Fig. 3). In view of the teaching Bradley, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the permeable layer in order to enhance sensitivity, selectivity, and signal strength of the device.
Regarding claim 19, Allen teaches that the gas sensor comprises a plurality of layers comprising the nanopores (i.e., arrays of multiple units) (see Fig. 5A-B), and wherein each of layers is part of an individual signal transducer (i.e., arrays of multiple units) (see Fig. 5A-B); but does not explicitly teach that each layer of the plurality of layers comprise a material of the layers have different affinities for a volatile compound and/or different diffusion properties for a volatile compounds. However, Bradley teaches each layer of the plurality of layers comprise a material of the layers (i.e., the conducting channel 106 (e.g., a carbon nanotube layer) may be functionalized to produce a sensitivity to one or more target analytes 101) (see Column 13, lines 14-36) have different affinities for a volatile compound and/or different diffusion properties for a volatile compounds (i.e., each device in the array may be functionalized with identical or different functionalization. Different functionalization may be useful for providing sensitivity to a greater variety of analytes with a single device) (see Column 18, lines 26-39). In view of the teaching of Bradley, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added different functionalization to the sensor array in order to improve the sensor sensitivity to a variety of analytes. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 21, Allen as modified by Bradley as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that each layer of the plurality of layers comprising the nanopores differs in thickness. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the appropriate dimension for the layer according to its functionalization, desired specification, and budget. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen (Pat. No. US 9,823,211) (hereafter Allen) in view of Saaski et al. (Pat. No. US 5,039,492) (hereafter Saaski)
Regarding claim 12, Allen as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the optical signal transducer comprises a bottom reflective or semi-reflective layer, a top reflective or semi-reflective gas permeable layer, and wherein the layer comprising the nanopores is positioned between the bottom reflective or semi-reflective layer and the top reflective or semi-reflective gas permeable layer. However, Saaski teaches that the optical signal transducer comprises a bottom reflective or semi-reflective layer (i.e., substrate 120) (see Fig. 11A-B), a top reflective or semi-reflective gas permeable layer (i.e., transparent, gas-permeable, ionophobic membrane 208 is then placed over substrate 120) (see Fig. 11A-B), and wherein the layer comprising the nanopores is positioned between the bottom reflective or semi-reflective layer and the top reflective or semi-reflective gas permeable layer (i.e., sensor 14 is positioned between substrate 120 and membrane 208) (see Fig. 11A-B). In view of the teaching of Saaski, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the reflective layers in order to improve the sensitivity and measurement accuracy of the device.
Claims 24 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen (Pat. No. US 9,823,211) (hereafter Allen) in view of Koenig et al. (Pat. No. US 11,105,760) (hereafter Koenig)
Regarding claim 24, Allen as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach determining in step d) comprises determining the presence and concentration of water in the gas. However, Koenig teaches determining in step d) comprises determining the presence and concentration of water in the gas (i.e., a sensitivity to moisture or hydrogen is desired, there can be a functionalization with platinum or palladium as well, which, as nanoparticles, are arranged with a uniform distribution at an atomic level) (see Column 16, lines 1-17). In view of the teaching of Koenig, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added functionalization in order to detect moisture in the sample, so as to further improve the measurement accuracy of the device.
Regarding claim 31, Allen as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the method determines the gas comprises water vapor. However, Koenig teaches that the method determines the gas comprises water vapor (i.e., a sensitivity to moisture or hydrogen is desired, there can be a functionalization with platinum or palladium as well, which, as nanoparticles, are arranged with a uniform distribution at an atomic level) (see Column 16, lines 1-17). In view of the teaching of Koenig, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added functionalization in order to detect moisture in the sample, so as to further improve the measurement accuracy of the device.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen (Pat. No. US 9,823,211) (hereafter Allen) in view of Britt et al. (Pat. No US 10,605,778) (hereafter Britt)
Regarding claim 25, Allen as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that that the temperature of the layer comprising the nanopores is perturbated in a periodic manner. However, Britt teaches that the temperature of the layer comprising the nanopores is perturbated in a periodic manner (i.e., the temperature may be controlled in any of the three ways previously described such as a temperature range (e.g., sweep or oscillate through the range), setpoint temperature corresponding to a target concentration for an alarm embodiment, or temperature change according to a servomechanism) (see Column 15, line 46, to Column 16, line 8). In view of the teaching of Britt, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have oscillated the temperature range of the heater in order to improve the detection accuracy and calibration precision of the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN M. TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0307. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:30am - 7:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Laura Martin can be reached on (571)-272-2160. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Tran M. Tran/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights