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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the assist gas chamber associated with a nozzle for supplying an assist gas flow (see claims 1 and 13, for example) and the optical assistance element facing the assist gas chamber (see claim 13 for example) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Optical interferometric sensor means” and “interferometric sensor means” in claims 1-14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-14 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the pressure in an assist gas chamber" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What pressure of the assist gas chamber is being referred to here?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the local position of an optical element" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What local position of the optical element is being referred to here?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the optical transport path for the processing laser beam" in lines 6-7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. First, what optical transport path is being referred to here? Also, what processing laser beam is being referred to here? Is this the laser beam that performs the cutting/drilling/welding or additive manufacturing set forth in lines 2-4 of the claim?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "outside the axis of the processing laser beam" in lines 7-8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which axis of the processing laser being is being referred to here?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said optical element" in line 11 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What optical element is being referred to here? Is it the optical element from line 5 of the claim, or the optical assistance element from line 7 of the claim?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the interferometric sensor means" in lines 16-17 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What interferometric sensor means are being set forth here? Is this the optical interferometric sensor means of line 13 of the claim?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the position of a pattern of interference fringes" in line 29 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What position of a pattern of interference fringes is being referred to here?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the coherence length of said low coherence optical radiation" in lines 32-33 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What coherence length of the low coherence optical radiation is being referred to here?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the frequency of a pattern of fringes in the wavelength spectrum" in line 33 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What frequency of what wavelength spectrum is being referred to here?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the interference between the measurement beam and the reference beam" in line 34 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What interference is being referred to here?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the frequency domain" in line 35 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What frequency domain is being referred to here?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the current local position of said optical element" in lines 38-39 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What is the current local position that is being referred to here?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the predetermined nominal local position of said optical element along the axis of the measurement beam" in lines 39-40 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What predetermined nominal local position of what axis of the measurement beam is being referred to here?
Claim 1 recites the limitation “said region of incidence" in lines 41-42 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What region of incidence is being referred to here? Is it the common region of incidence from earlier in the claim?
Claim 4 recites that the measurement optical path includes at least a third section intermediate between the first and second sections and “comprised between” a first and a second back-reflection at the back-reflective surface of the optical element. However, it is unclear what the quoted phrase “comprised between” with regards to the third section means in this case. Does this mean the third section is an optical path between a first and second back-reflection at the back reflective surface of the optical element? Or is it an element between the first and second back-reflection locations? Or something else?
Claim 5 recites that the measurement optical path includes at least a third section intermediate between the first and second sections and “comprised between” a first and a second back-reflection at the back-reflective surface of the optical element. However, it is unclear what the quoted phrase “comprised between” with regards to the third section means in this case. Does this mean the third section is an optical path between a first and second back-reflection at the back reflective surface of the optical element? Or is it an element between the first and second back-reflection locations? Or something else?
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the laser beam" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What laser beam is being referred to here? Is this the processing laser beam that performs the cutting/drilling/welding or additive manufacturing set forth in lines 2-4 of claim 1? Or a different laser beam?
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the laser beam" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What laser beam is being referred to here? Is this the processing laser beam that performs the cutting/drilling/welding or additive manufacturing set forth in lines 2-4 of claim 1? Or a different laser beam?
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the optical transport path . . . of the material being worked" in lines 3-4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. First, what material being worked is being referred to here? Additionally, how can a material being worked, which the examiner takes to be a physical object, have an optical transport path when it would seem that an optical transport path would be the optical path a beam of light would take, not something associated with a physical object.
Claim 7 recites that “the measurement beam is led on said common region of incidence” and that “the reference beam is led on said common region of incidence” in lines 1-3 of the claim. It is unclear how beams of light can be “led on” a common region of incidence of an interferometric sensor. What is meant by leading on a beam of light? How are those beams of light “led on”? Are there particular optical elements that direct the beams of light along the claimed directions of incidence?
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the same direction of incidence" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What is the same direction of incidence of the measurement and reference beams that is being referred to here?
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the position of an additional pattern of interference fringes" in lines 14-15 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What position of the additional pattern is being referred to here?
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the optical radiation" in line 15 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What optical radiation is being referred to here? Is it the clow coherence optical radiation from claim 1? The processing laser beam?
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the peak or maximum of intensity of the optical radiation of the main pattern of interference fringes" in lines 16-17 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What peak or maximum of intensity of the main pattern of interference fringes is being referred to here?
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the envelope of the intensity of the optical radiation" in line 18 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What envelope of the intensity is being referred to here?
Claim 10 recites the limitation "a main reference beam which results from the travel of a main reference optical path" in lines 2-3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What does “the travel” refer to here? Additionally, how does a main reference beam result from travelling an optical path?
Claim 10 recites the limitation "at least one additional multiplexed reference beam which results from the travel of a main reference optical path" in lines 3-4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What does “the travel” refer to here? Additionally, how does a multiplexed reference beam result from travelling an optical path?
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the position of an additional pattern of interference fringes" in lines 7-8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What position of the additional pattern is being referred to here?
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the optical radiation" in line 8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What optical radiation is being referred to here? Is it the clow coherence optical radiation from claim 1? The processing laser beam?
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the peak or maximum of intensity of the optical radiation of the main pattern of interference fringes" in lines 9-10 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What peak or maximum of intensity of the main pattern of interference fringes is being referred to here?
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the envelope of the intensity of the optical radiation" in line 11 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What envelope of the intensity is being referred to here?
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the current optical path length" in lines 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What current optical path length of the measurement optical path is being referred to here?
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the current optical path length" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What current optical path length of the reference optical path is being referred to here?
Claim 11 recites the limitation "at least one calibration measurement beam which results from the travel of a calibration measurement optical path" in lines 8-9 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What does “the travel” refer to here? Additionally, how does a main reference beam result from travelling an optical path?
Claim 11 recites the limitation "in which the geometric length and the refractive index of the transmission medium of the calibration measurement optical path" in lines 15-16 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What geometric length, refractive index, and transmission medium of the calibration measurement optical path are being referred to here?
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the position of a pattern of interference fringes" in line 24 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What position of the pattern of interference fringes between the calibration beams are being referred to here?
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the frequency of a pattern of interference fringes" in line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What frequency of the pattern of calibration interference fringes is being referred to here?
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the geometric length . . . the refractive index . . " in lines 31-33. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What geometric length and refractive index of the measurement and reference calibration optical paths are being referred to here?
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the control of the propagation axis of the measurement optical radiation beam" in lines 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What control of what propagation axis of the measurement beam is being referred to here?
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the pressure in an assist gas chamber" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What pressure of the assist gas chamber is being referred to here?
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the optical transport path for the processing laser beam" in line 9 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What optical transport path for what processing laser beam are being referred to here? Is the processing laser beam the laser that performs the laser cutting or additive manufacturing of lines 2-4 of the claim?
Claim 13 recites the limitation "said optical element" in line 12 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which optical element does this refer to? The optical element of line 8 of the claim? Or the optical assistance element of line 10?
Claim 13 recites “wherein the measurement beam travels a measurement optical path from a respective source” in lines 14-15. However, the claim also recites, in lines 5-6, “means for generating a respective measurement low coherence optical radiation beam”. Is the respective source in lines 14-15 the same as the means for generating a radiation beam in lines 5-6? Or are these different light sources?
Claim 13 recites the limitation "said optical element" in lines 26-27 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which optical element does this refer to? The optical element of line 8 of the claim? Or the optical assistance element of line 10?
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the extension of said pattern of interference fringes" in line 34 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What extension of the interference fringes is being referred to here?
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the coherence length of said low coherence optical radiation" in lines 35-36 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What coherence length of the low coherence optical radiation is being referred to here?
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the frequency of a pattern of fringes in the wavelength spectrum" in line 36 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What frequency of what wavelength spectrum is being referred to here?
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the interference between the measurement beam and the reference beam" in line 37 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What interference is being referred to here?
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the frequency domain" in line 38 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What frequency domain is being referred to here?
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the current local position of said optical element" in lines 42-43 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What is the current local position of what optical element that is being referred to here?
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the predetermined nominal local position of said optical element along the axis of the measurement beam" in lines 43-44 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What predetermined nominal local position of what axis of the measurement beam is being referred to here?
Claim 13 recites the limitation “said region of incidence" in lines 45 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What region of incidence is being referred to here? Is it the common region of incidence from earlier in the claim?
Claim 14 recites “a system for determining the pressure in an assist gas chamber” in line 7-8 of the claim. This limitation is unclear, as “an assist gas chamber” is also set forth in lines 3-4 of the claim. Is the assist gas chamber in lines 7-8, then, the same or a different assist gas chamber than what is set forth in lines 3-4 of the claim? Additionally, what pressure of the assist gas chamber is being referred to here?
Claims 2-3 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1, thereby containing all the limitations of the claim on which they depend.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 1, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method for determining pressure in an assist gas chamber associated with a nozzle for supplying an assist gas clow, carried by a working head of a machine for laser cutting, drilling, or welding of a material, or for the additive manufacturing of three-dimensional structures by a laser, the method comprising, among other essential steps, generating a respective measurement beam of low coherence optical radiation, leading said measurement beam towards said at least one optical element, and leading the measurement beam reflected or diffused by at least one back-reflective surface of said at least one optical element, on which said measurement beam impinges with at least a partial back-reflection, towards an optical interferometric sensor means, wherein the measurement beam travels a measurement optical path from a respective source to said optical interferometric sensor means including a first section between said source and said at least one back-reflective surface of said at least one optical element and a second section between said at least one back-reflective surface of said at least one optical element and the interferometric sensor means, having a respective predetermined nominal geometric length when said at least one optical element is in a predetermined nominal position corresponding to a predetermined reference pressure value of the assist gas in the assist gas chamber; and determining a difference in optical length between the measurement optical path and the reference optical path, indicative of a difference between (a) a current local position of said at least one optical element and (b) a predetermined nominal local position of said at least one optical element along an axis of the measurement beam, as a function respectively of the position of said pattern of interference fringes along said predetermined illumination axis of said common region of incidence, or of the frequency of said pattern of interference fringes in the frequency domain, and determining the pressure of the assist gas in the assist gas chamber according to a predetermined reference model indicative of a nominal relationship between the position of the optical element with respect to the predetermined position and the assist gas pressure, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
As to claim 13, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a system for determining pressure in an assist gas chamber associated with a nozzle for supplying an assist gas flow, carried by a working head of a machine for laser cutting, drilling, or welding of a material, or for the additive manufacturing of three-dimensional structures by a laser, the system comprising, among other essential features, means for propagation of said measurement beam, adapted to lead said measurement beam towards said at least one optical element, and to lead the measurement beam reflected or diffused by at least one back-reflective surface of said at least one optical element, on which said measurement beam impinges with at least a partial back-reflection, towards an optical interferometric sensor means, wherein the measurement beam travels a measurement optical path from a respective source to said optical interferometric sensor means including a first section between said source and said at least one back-reflective surface of said at least one optical element and a second section between said at least one back-reflective surface of said at least one optical element and the interferometric sensor means, having a respective predetermined nominal geometric length when said at least one optical element is in a predetermined nominal position corresponding to a predetermined reference pressure value of the assist gas in the assist gas chamber; and processing means arranged to determine a difference in optical length between the measurement optical path and the reference optical path, indicative of a difference between (a) a current local position of said optical element and (b) the predetermined nominal local position of said optical element along an axis of the measurement beam, as a function respectively of the position of said pattern of interference fringes along said predetermined illumination axis of said common region of incidence, or of the frequency of said pattern of interference fringes in the frequency domain, and determine the pressure of the assist gas in the assist gas chamber according to a predetermined reference model indicative of a nominal relationship between the position of the optical element with respect to the predetermined nominal position and the assist gas pressure, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
With further regard to the above claim, the use of interferometry or optical coherence tomography to determine the position of a machining head for a laser machining device is known in the art as taught by US 2016/0059347 to Kogel-Hollacher et al., which discloses the use of a coherence tomography device 48 to measure a distance between the machining head 14 of the device and the workpiece 24 being treated (see Fig. 1 and the abstract). Additionally, the closest prior art, US 2020/0198051 to Sauer, discloses a device that determines the orientation of an optical device (see abstract) using optical coherence tomography. An optical coherence tomography device 200 is used to determine the orientation of laser machining system 100, as light 13 from the OCT is used concurrently with laser light 10 that is used to machine workpiece 1. Sauer further discloses measuring the orientation of an optical device 250 in order to correct for the drift of the galvanometer scanner that optical device 250 represents (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs 0048-0055). However, this prior art fails to disclose the claimed invention as set forth above, as the optical element being measured in Sauer is not an optical element associated with an optical transport path for a laser beam in a working head of a machine for laser processing of a material, as the laser light 10 in the device of Sauer does not impinge on optical device 250 that is being measured. Additionally, the prior art fails to disclose that the measurement beam is reflected or diffused by at least one back-reflective surface of the optical element being measured as set forth above, in addition to the specific processing set forth by the instant claims for determining the current local position of the optical element, and the prior art fails to disclose the specifics of determining the pressure of the assist gas as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. “Laser Cutting: A Review on the Influence of Assist Gas” by Riveiro et al. discloses the role of assist gas in laser fusion cutting; US Pat. 12,298,131 to Donadello et al. is the patent that issued from patent application 17/781594; US 2009/0127239 to Numata et al. discloses a laser piercing method and processing apparatus where the pressure of the assist gas can be determined on the basis of the thickness of the processing portion (see paragraph 0056); and US 2020/0254561 to Blazquez-Sanchez discloses a device for determining a focus position of a laser beam in a laser machining system (see abstract and Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael A. Lyons whose telephone number is (571)272-2420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti 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.
/Michael A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 July 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights