Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-13 are 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 1 recites “the nebulizer gas flow rate is at least around 8 +/-10% mach.” The nebulizing gas is not positively claimed. As is claimed, the nebulizer gas flow rate is used to further limit the positively claimed nebulizer. It is unclear what physical limitations the nebulizer gas flow rate imposes on the nebulizer. Further, mach is a measure of the local flow velocity of the gas over the speed of sound in the medium. This is dependent on the medium as well as the temperature of said medium. Therefore, it is unclear when infringement occurs as a property of the nebulizer or as a property of the medium.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the nebulizer gas flow rate and temperature, the auxiliary flow rate and temperature, the curtain gas flow rate and temperature, and the exhaust flow rate are configured to direct the ions away from the walls of the heated vessel.” “[T]he use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear” (see MPEP 2173.05(g). As written, the claim recites the result of directing the ions away from the walls of the heated vessel using the gasses present in the vessel, without attaching said function to any particular aspect of the claimed apparatus. It is unclear what features of apparatus perform the claimed result. The claim only states a result obtained and does not set forth well-defined boundaries of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would now know what structure is encompassed by the claim.
Claim 3 recites “where the nebulizer gas flow rate is around 1.0+/-10% mach or higher”. The nebulizing gas is not positively claimed. As it claimed, the nebulizer gas flow rate is used to further limit the positively claimed nebulizer. It is unclear what physical limitations the nebulizer gas flow rate imposes on the nebulizer.
Claim 8 recites “where the auxiliary gas and mixture of nebulizing gas and ions move in a laminar flow.” “[T]he use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear” (see MPEP 2173.05(g). As written, claim 8 discloses a result without attaching said result to any particular aspect of the claimed apparatus. It is unclear how the laminar flow is achieved and it is unclear what physical limitations said laminar flow imposes on the claimed apparatus. The claim only states a result obtained and does not set forth well-defined boundaries of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would now know what structure is encompassed by the claim.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the heated vessel has a circular cross-sectional shape and has a diameter of around 45+/-10% mm and a length of around 75+/-10% mm.” Paragraph 33 of the specifications of the present disclosure define “around” to mean “plus or minus 10%.” It is unclear if the claimed range for the diameter of the vessel is intended to be from 40.5mm - 49.5 mm or from 36.45 mm – 54.45 mm. The same lack of clarity applies to the length of the vessel. For the purposes of examination, the claimed range will be interpreted to be from 40.5mm - 49.5 mm for the diameter and from 67.5 mm – 82.5 mm for the length of the vessel.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the heated vessel has dimensions that fit within an envelope of dimensions of around 50+/-10% mm by around 50+/-10% mm by around 80+/-10% mm.” The use of the word “around” in combination with “+/-10%” renders the claimed ranges unclear for the same reasons as applied to claim 11. For the purposes of examination, the claimed ranges in claim 12 will be interpreted without applying the definition of “around” as defined in paragraph 33 of the specifications.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Charles Jolliffe (US 20050035287 A1), hereinafter referred to as Jolliffe.
Regarding claim 1, Jolliffe teaches a deposit-reducing system for mass spectrometry, comprising:
a heated vessel, to be mounted in front of a sample introduction system of a mass spectrometer (MS) (mass spectrometer interface 210D) (A region of disturbance of the mass spectrometer interface was directly heated to 300 C using two embedded cartridge heater elements that deliver up to 150 W (para. [0063]));
a heater configured to heat the heated vessel (heater 274A);
a conduit attached to the heated vessel (chamber 16);
a nebulizer configured to introduce a nebulizing gas, where the nebulizing gas has a nebulizer gas flow rate and temperature (Heated nebulizing gas can be applied through tube 20 heated by element 22 to aid in the dispersion and evaporation of the electrospray droplets (para. [0036]));
a sample introduction device having a sample introduction tip, configured to introduce a sample into the heated vessel through the sample introduction tip (The ionized particles and any attached impurities may alternatively be formed using one or more of electrospray ionization (ESI) (para. [0019])), wherein the sample introduction tip is placed either inside the conduit (Atmospheric pressure ion source 12 is enclosed in a chamber 16 (para. [0035])) or inside the heated vessel;
the nebulizer and the sample introduction device being configured so the nebulizing gas mixes with the sample at the sample introduction tip to form a mixture of nebulizer gas and the sample at the sample introduction tip (Heated nebulizing gas can be applied through tube 20 heated by element 22 to aid in the dispersion and evaporation of the electrospray droplets (para. [0036]));
where the nebulizer gas flow rate is at least around 0.8 +/-10% mach.
Nebulizing gas is not positively claimed.
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.
Claims 2, 4, 5, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jolliffe in view of Charles Jolliffe (US 20070181800 A1), hereinafter referred to as Jolliffe2, and in further view of Kazushige Nishimura (US 10551346 B2), hereinafter referred to as Nishimura.
Regarding claim 2, Jolliffe teaches the deposit-reducing system for mass spectrometry of claim 1, further comprising:
a curtain cone (curtain gas chamber region 280D (para. [0052])), a heated curtain gas, having a curtain gas flow rate and temperature (an additional curtain gas chamber region 280D with orifice 282D through which sheath flow gas is passed (para. [0052])), the heated vessel having an exhaust port, the exhaust port being connected to a pump and the pump being configured to form an exhaust flow, having an exhaust flow rate, out of the heated vessel (Exemplary interface 10 body is evacuated through evacuation port 28 by a roughing pump 30, pumping 10 l/s holding the average pressure in the range of 2 Torr (para. [0037]));
a first ionization device configured to ionize the sample and form a mixture of nebulizing gas and ions (Heated nebulizing gas can be applied through tube 20 heated by element 22 to aid in the dispersion and evaporation of the electrospray droplets (para. [0036]));
Jolliffe fails to teach a curtain cone interfacing with the sample introduction system of the MS through an orifice of the sample introduction system of the MS, the curtain cone being located in the heated vessel; a curtain gas introduced between the curtain cone and the orifice; a heated auxiliary gas, having an auxiliary gas flow rate and temperature, introduced into the heated vessel through the conduit and configured to surround the nebulizing gas; wherein the nebulizer gas flow rate and temperature, the auxiliary flow rate and temperature, the curtain gas flow rate and temperature, and the exhaust flow rate are configured to direct the ions away from the walls of the heated vessel.
However, Jolliffe2 teaches a curtain cone (counter plate 51) interfacing with the sample introduction system of the MS through an orifice (aperture 61 located in sampling plate 53 (para. [0051])) of the sample introduction system of the MS, the curtain cone being located in the heated vessel; a curtain gas introduced between the curtain cone and the orifice (counter flow gas 52);
To be clear Jolliffe teaches the use of a curtain cone and counter gas. However, Jolliffe does not teach the curtain cone interfaces the sample introduction system of the MS though an orifice and the curtain cone is located in the heated vessel. Jolliffe2 teaches the use of a curtain cone which interfaces the sample introduction system of the MS through an orifice of the sample introduction system where a curtain gas is introduced between the curtain cone and the orifice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Jolliffe to include the teachings of Jolliffe2 by incorporating an additional curtain cone and curtain gas at the sampling orifice 46 such that the curtain cone is located in the heated vessel. Doing so further prevents contaminating particles from entering the mass spectrometer.
Further, Nishimura teaches a heated auxiliary gas, having an auxiliary gas flow rate and temperature (and a heater 141 is mounted around the flow path 108 in order to heat the gas within the flow path 108 (col. 5, lines 2-4)), introduced into the heated vessel through the conduit and configured to surround the nebulizing gas (flow path 108 is placed on the outside of the nebulizer-gas flow path 106 (col. 5, lines 1-2)).
Jolliffe teaches the use of electrospray with a heated nebulizing gas applied through a tube provided around the electrospray. Nishimura teaches an ESI spray surrounded by a nebulizer flow path. Nishimura also teaches an additional heated gas flow path around the nebulizing gas flow path. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Jolliffe to include the teachings of Nishimura by incorporating the heated flow path 108 outside the nebulizer gas flow path of Jolliffe. As explained by Nishimura “[t]he heated gas volatilizes the solvent in the charged droplets 109 to produce analyte ions” (col. 5, lines 7-8).
Finally, Jolliffe in view of Jolliffe2 and Nishimura inherently teaches wherein the nebulizer gas flow rate and temperature, the auxiliary flow rate and temperature, the curtain gas flow rate and temperature, and the exhaust flow rate are configured to direct the ions away from the walls of the heated vessel.
The nebulizer gas, auxiliary gas, and curtain gas, each inherently have a flow rate and temperature. The exhaust also inherently has a flow rate. Ions moving within the heated vessel will inherently move in 3 dimensions in response to said gas flows. In turn, some ions will inherently be directed away from the walls of the heated vessel.
Regarding claim 4, Jolliffe teaches the deposit-reducing system for mass spectrometry of claim 2, further comprising: the tip of the sample introduction device having a voltage (The ionized particles and any attached impurities may alternatively be formed using one or more of electrospray ionization (ESI) (para. [0019]));
ESI works by applying a voltage to the tip of a sample introduction device.
Jolliffe fails to teach the curtain cone having a voltage lower than the tip; and the orifice having a voltage lower than the curtain cone.
However, Jolliffe2 teaches the deposit-reducing system for mass spectrometry of claim 2, further comprising: the tip of the sample introduction device having a voltage (Chemical reagents or sample analytes are generated by either ESI (para. [0057]));
the curtain cone having a voltage lower than the tip (Typical voltages for an electrospray positive ion source 50, the counter plate 51, and the sampling plate 53 are 5000V, 1000V, and 100V, respectively (para. [0051]));
and the orifice having a voltage lower than the curtain cone (Typical voltages for an electrospray positive ion source 50, the counter plate 51, and the sampling plate 53 are 5000V, 1000V, and 100V, respectively (para. [0051])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Jolliffe to include the teachings of Jolliffe2 such that the tip of the sample introduction device has a voltage, the curtain cone has a voltage lower than the tip, and the orifice has a voltage lower than the curtain cone. As explained by Jolliffe2, “these voltages ensure the positive ions are directed from the ion source 50 to the sampling plate aperture 61 whereupon the atmosphere gas flow pushes them into the low pressure region of the first stage of a mass spectrometer” (para. [0051]).
Regarding claim 5, Jolliffe fails to teach the deposit-reducing system for mass spectrometry of claim 2, further comprising: the orifice having a voltage; the curtain cone having a voltage lower than the orifice; and the tip of the sample introduction device having a voltage lower than the curtain cone.
However, Jolliffe2 teaches the orifice having a voltage; the curtain cone having a voltage lower than the orifice; and the tip of the sample introduction device having a voltage lower than the curtain cone (Typical voltages for an electrospray positive ion source 50, the counter plate 51, and the sampling plate 53 are…For negative ion detection the polarity of these typical voltages are -5,000V, -1000V, and -100V, respectively (para. [0051])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Jolliffe to include the teachings of Jolliffe2 such that the orifice has a voltage, the curtain cone has a voltage lower than the orifice, and the tip of the sample introduction device has a voltage lower than the curtain cone. As explained by Jolliffe2 “these voltages ensure the positive ions are directed from the ion source 50 to the sampling plate aperture 61 whereupon the atmosphere gas flow pushes them into the low pressure region of the first stage of a mass spectrometer” (para. [0051]).
Regarding claim 10, Jolliffe teaches the deposit-reducing system for mass spectrometry of claim 5, wherein the heated vessel is tubular (flow tube 42) and the heated vessel has a cross-sectional shape selected from the group consisting of a circle (FIG. 3 displays a possible cross-sectional view of the mass spectrometer interface 310) (see Fig. 3 below), ellipse, oval and multisided shapes.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jolliffe in view of Jolliffe2 and Nishimura, and in further view of Chady Stephan (US 20200035475 A1), hereinafter referred to as Stephan.
Regarding claim 11, Jolliffe teaches the deposit-reducing system for mass spectrometry of claim 10, wherein the heated vessel has a circular cross-sectional shape (FIG. 3 displays a possible cross-sectional view of the mass spectrometer interface 310) (see Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
472
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jolliffe fails to teach wherein the heated vessel has a diameter of around 45+/-10% mm and a length of around 75+/-10% mm.
However, Stephan teaches a vessel with a diameter of 50 mm and a length of 100 mm (In an embodiment, chamber 106 may be between about 10 cm and about 30 cm in length and between about 5 cm and about 10 cm in diameter (para. [0051])).
Further, optimizing the diameter and length of the heated vessel is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Jolliffe teaches that “with progressively larger cross-sections/diameters in the channel sections, 32, 42, 44, the ion and neutral flow velocity is continually decreased along the flow. The reduced flow velocity extends the transit time prior to sampling, enhancing the desolvation efficiency and therefore signal-to-noise ratio” (para. [0043]). As such, Jolliffe identifies the diameter and length of the heated vessel as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., enhancing desolvation efficiency and therefore, improving signal to noise ratio. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the diameter and length of the heated vessel in Jolliffe to meet a diameter of around 45+/-10% mm and a length of around 75+/-10% mm since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 12, Jolliffe fails to teach the deposit-reducing system for mass spectrometry of claim 10, wherein the heated vessel has dimensions that fit within an envelope of dimensions of around 50+/-10% mm by around 50+/-10% mm by around 80+/-10% mm.
However, Stephan teaches a vessel that has dimensions that fit within an envelope of dimensions of 50 mm by 50 mm by 100 mm (In an embodiment, chamber 106 may be between about 10 cm and about 30 cm in length and between about 5 cm and about 10 cm in diameter (para. [0051])).
Further, optimizing the diameter and length of the heated vessel is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Jolliffe teaches that “with progressively larger cross-sections/diameters in the channel sections, 32, 42, 44, the ion and neutral flow velocity is continually decreased along the flow. The reduced flow velocity extends the transit time prior to sampling, enhancing the desolvation efficiency and therefore signal-to-noise ratio” (para. [0043]). As such, Jolliffe identifies the diameter and length of the heated vessel as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., enhancing desolvation efficiency and therefore, improving signal to noise ratio. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the diameter and length of the heated vessel in Jolliffe to meet the limitation “wherein the heated vessel has dimensions that fit within an envelope of dimensions of around 50+/-10% mm by around 50+/-10% mm by around 80+/-10% mm”, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 13, Jolliffe teaches the deposit-reducing system for mass spectrometer of claim 11, further comprising a second ionization device (The ionized particles and any attached impurities may alternatively be formed using one or more of electrospray ionization (ESI), matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization (MALDI), atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI), and atmospheric pressure photoionization (APPI) (para. [0019])), and the first ionization device and the second ionization device are configured to operate either simultaneously or as alternatives within the heated vessel (It will be apparent to those skilled in the art that multiple ion sources may be applied either simultaneously or in a near-simultaneous but sequential fashion (para. [0061])).
Claims 3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jolliffe in view of Jolliffe2.
Regarding claim 3, Jolliffe teaches the deposit-reducing system for mass spectrometry of claim 1, where the nebulizer gas flow rate is around 1.0+/-10% mach or higher (Heated nebulizing gas can be applied through tube 20 heated by element 22 to aid in the dispersion and evaporation of the electrospray droplets (para. [0036])).
Nebulizer gas is not positively claimed.
Regarding claim 6, Jolliffe fails to teach the deposit-reducing system for mass-spectrometry of claim 3, further comprising the tip of the sample introduction device, the curtain cone, and the orifice having voltages to form a voltage gradient, where the system is configured to allow an operator to switch between a positive voltage gradient and a negative voltage gradient.
However, Jolliffe2 teaches the deposit-reducing system for mass-spectrometry of claim 3, further comprising the tip of the sample introduction device, the curtain cone, and the orifice having voltages to form a voltage gradient (Typical voltages for an electrospray positive ion source 50, the counter plate 51, and the sampling plate 53 are 5000V, 1000V, and 100V, respectively. These voltages ensure the positive ions are. directed from the ion source 50 to the sampling plate aperture 61 whereupon the atmosphere gas flow pushes them into the low pressure region of the first stage of a mass spectrometer. For negative ion detection the polarity of these typical voltages are -5,000V, -1000V, and -100V, respectively (para. [0051])),
where the system is configured to allow an operator to switch between a positive voltage gradient and a negative voltage gradient (power supply for applying suitable voltages to the ion source, curtain plate member and the orifice plate member for electrostatic lensing of the analyte ions emitted from an ion source toward the sample entrance through the aperture in the curtain plate member and the orifice in the orifice plate member (para. [0022])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Jolliffe to include the teachings of Jolliffe2 such that the voltages applied to the tip of the sample introduction device, the curtain cone, and the orifice form a voltage gradient and incorporating a power supply to switch between a positive and negative voltage gradient. The voltage gradient ensures ions are directed into the mass spectrometer and the power supply allows both positive and negative ions to be guided for analysis.
Regarding claim 7, Jolliffe teaches the deposit-reducing system for mass spectrometry of claim 6, where the first ionization device is one of: (i) an electrospray device, (ii) an atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI) device, or (iii) an atmospheric pressure photoionization (APPI) device (The ionized particles and any attached impurities may alternatively be formed using one or more of electrospray ionization (ESI), matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization (MALDI), atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI), and atmospheric pressure photoionization (APPI) (para. [0019])).
Regarding claim 8, Jolliffe teaches the deposit-reducing system for mass spectrometry of claim 7, where the auxiliary gas and mixture of nebulizing gas and ions move in a laminar flow (the ion and neutral gas continue a flow through tubes 42 and 44, with a diameter of typically 5-15 and 10-30 mm bore, respectively. Again eventually the flow becomes generally laminar (para. [0039])).
To be clear, Jolliffe teaches a mass spectrometer interface designed such that neutral gas molecules and ions achieve a laminar flow in the sampling region.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jolliffe in view of Jolliffe2, and in further view of Thomas Covey (US 9870904 B2), hereinafter referred to as Covey.
Regarding claim 9, Jolliffe fails to teach the deposit-reducing system for mass spectrometry of claim 8, wherein the heated vessel is heated up to at least around 500+/-10% °C.
However, Covey teaches the deposit-reducing system for mass spectrometry of claim 8, wherein the heated vessel is heated up to at least around 500+/-10% °C (in some aspects, the heater(s) 52 can be effective to raise the temperature of the ionization chamber to a temperature in a range of from about 100 °C to about 800 °C. (col. 7, lines 13-15)).
Jolliffe teaches using a heater to heat a region of disturbance to 300 C within a mass spectrometer interface. Jolliffe explains a sensitivity gain is achieved by the application of heat. Covey teaches the use of heaters to heat an ionization chamber to at least 500+/-10% °C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Jolliffe to include the teachings of Covey by replacing the heated elements 40 of Jolliffe with heaters 52 such that the chamber can be heated to at least 500+/-10% °C. Doing so “promote[s] desolvation of the plurality of fluid droplets within the sample plume (Covey; col. 7, lines 7-8).”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICA J. EINHORN whose telephone number is (571)272-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571) 272-2293. 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.
/MICA JILLIAN EINHORN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights