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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10 February 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19: “the light guide units” in line 2 should be “the plurality of light guide units” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 20: “the light guide units” in line 2 should be “the plurality of light guide units” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is:
“a detection unit” in claim 1: “detection unit 110 performs photoelectric conversion of the light received at the light reception surface 112 using photodiodes, and outputs an electrical signal” (¶16).
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation 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 to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-14, 17, and 19-20 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.
Regarding claim 8, “light” in line 3 in unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 1, on which claim 8 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same light mentioned previously or a different light? In light of the specification, the Examiner in interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same light mentioned previously.
Regarding claim 9, “light” in line 3 in unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 1, on which claim 8 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same light mentioned previously or a different light? In light of the specification, the Examiner in interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same light mentioned previously.
Claim 10 is rejected for its dependency on claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, “light” in line 2 in unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 1, on which claim 8 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same light mentioned previously or a different light? In light of the specification, the Examiner in interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same light mentioned previously.
Regarding claim 12, “light” in line 2 in unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 1, on which claim 8 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same light mentioned previously or a different light? In light of the specification, the Examiner in interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same light mentioned previously.
Claims 13-14 are rejected for their dependency on claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, “light” in line 2 in unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 1, on which claim 8 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same light mentioned previously or a different light? In light of the specification, the Examiner in interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same light mentioned previously.
Claim 14 is rejected for its dependency on claim 13.
Regarding claim 17, “a plurality of the light guide units” in line 2 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 16, in which claim 17 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same plurality of light guide units mentioned previously or a different plurality of light guide units? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same plurality of light guide units mentioned previously.
Claim 20 is rejected for its dependency on claim 17.
Regarding claim 19, “light” in lines 3 and 7 respectively is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 1, on which claim 19 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same light mentioned previously or a different light? In light of the specification, the Examiner in interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same light mentioned previously.
Regarding claim 20, “light” in line 3 in unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 1, on which claim 8 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same light mentioned previously or a different light? In light of the specification, the Examiner in interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same light mentioned previously.
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 1-6, 8, 11-14, 16-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunai (JP 2018011278 A) in view of Torasawa et al. (JP 2020038960 A).
Regarding claim 1, Tsunai teaches a detection device, comprising: a light guide unit (902/903) having a light incidence opening (931) for entry of light and a light emission opening (932) smaller in size than the light incidence opening (931), the light entering through the light incidence opening (931) being emitted through the light emission opening (932) (see figures 9 and 10, limiting unit 903 and light guide unit 902 (902 and 903 together forming light guide unit) having entrance opening 931 (i.e. light incidence opening) and output port 932 (i.e. light emission opening); and ¶61, One end of the limiting section 903 is an entrance opening 931 into which light from the outside is incident, and a lens 803 is provided thereon. The other end of the limiting section 903 is an output port 932 that communicates with the input port 921, which is one end of the light guide section 902. The limiting section 903 has a weight-like structure in which the opening width decreases from the inlet 931 at one end to the outlet 932 at the other end); and a detection unit (901) configured to detect the light emitted through the light emission opening (932) (see figure 9, photoelectric conversion unit 901 (i.e. detection unit); and ¶63, The light-transmitting section 924 emits light that has been incident on the input port 921 from the limiting section 903 to the photoelectric conversion section 901 from the output port 922). However, Tsunai fails to explicitly teach wherein the detection unit comprises a photodiode.
However, Torasawa teaches the detection unit comprises a photodiode (¶18, The photoelectric conversion unit 11 is formed by a photodiode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsunai to incorporate the teachings of Torasawa to have the photoelectric element consist of a photodiode because of their highly linear output current proportional to light intensity, fast response and switching speed, low noise, and high sensitivity to a broad spectrum of light.
Regarding claim 2, Tsunai as modified by Torasawa teaches the detection device according to claim 1, wherein the light guide unit (Tsunai 902/903) has a penetrating hole (Tsunai 934) with a frustum shape having the light incidence opening (Tsunai 931) and the light emission opening (Tsunai 932), and configured to emit the light entering through the light incidence (Tsunai 931) opening via the penetrating hole (Tsunai 934) and through the light emission opening (Tsunai 932) (Tsunai, see figure 10, light-transmitting portion 934 (i.e. penetrating hole); and ¶65, The light-transmitting portion 934 is, for example, a through-hole that penetrates from the entrance port 931 to the exit port 932).
Regarding claim 3, Tsunai as modified by Torasawa teaches the detection device according to claim 1, wherein an edge of the light incidence opening (Tsunai 931) has a light incidence edge positioned at a first distance from a center of the light incidence opening (Tsunai 931), and another light incidence edge other than the aforementioned light incidence edge positioned at the first distance from the center of the light incidence opening (Tsunai 931) (Tsunai, ¶65, The cross-sectional shape of the light-transmitting portion 934 may be a circle or a polygon), and wherein an edge of the light emission opening (Tsunai 932) has a light emission edge positioned at a second distance, shorter than the first distance, from a center of the light emission opening (Tsunai 932), and another light emission edge other than the aforementioned light emission edge positioned at the second distance from the center of the light emission opening (Tsunai 932) (Tsunai, ¶65, The cross-sectional shape of the light-transmitting portion 934 may be a circle or a polygon; and ¶61, The limiting section 903 has a weight-like structure in which the opening width decreases from the inlet 931 at one end to the outlet 932 at the other end).
Regarding claim 4, Tsunai as modified by Torasawa teaches the detection device according to claim 3, wherein the light incidence opening (Tsunai 931) and the light emission opening (Tsunai 932) have a circular shape (Tsunai, ¶65, The cross-sectional shape of the light-transmitting portion 934 may be a circle or a polygon).
Regarding claim 5, Tsunai as modified by Torasawa teaches the detection device according to claim 1, wherein an edge of the light incidence opening (Tsunai 931) has a light incidence edge positioned at a third distance from a center of the light incidence opening (Tsunai 931), and another light incidence edge other than the aforementioned light incidence edge positioned at a fourth distance, shorter than the third distance, from the center of the light incidence opening (Tsunai 931) (Tsunai, ¶65, The cross-sectional shape of the light-transmitting portion 934 may be a circle or a polygon), and wherein an edge of the light emission opening (Tsunai 932) has a light emission edge positioned at a fifth distance, shorter than the third distance, from a center of the light emission opening (Tsunai 932), and another light emission edge other than the aforementioned light emission edge positioned at a sixth distance, shorter than the fifth distance, from the center of the light emission opening (Tsunai 932) (Tsunai, ¶65, The cross-sectional shape of the light-transmitting portion 934 may be a circle or a polygon; and ¶61, The limiting section 903 has a weight-like structure in which the opening width decreases from the inlet 931 at one end to the outlet 932 at the other end).
Regarding claim 6, Tsunai as modified by Torasawa teaches the detection device according to claim 5, wherein the light incidence opening (Tsunai 931) and the light emission opening (Tsunai 932) have a polygonal shape (Tsunai, ¶65, The cross-sectional shape of the light-transmitting portion 934 may be a circle or a polygon).
Regarding claim 8, Tsunai as modified by Torasawa teaches the detection device according to claim 1, wherein an internal circumferential surface of the light guide unit (Tsunai 902/903) is a reflective surface that reflects light (Tsunai, ¶62, the interior of the coating 801 can be made of a material with a lower refractive index than the light guide portion 902. As a result, the light passing through the light guide 902 undergoes total internal reflection within the light guide 902 and is emitted to the photoelectric conversion element).
Regarding claim 11, Tsunai as modified by Torasawa teaches the detection device according claim 1, wherein the light incidence opening (Tsunai 931) has a member (Tsunai 803) that condenses light in a direction towards the light emission opening (Tsunai 932) (Tsunai, see figures 9 and 10, lens 803; and ¶61, One end of the limiting section 903 is an entrance opening 931 into which light from the outside is incident, and a lens 803 is provided thereon).
Regarding claim 12, Tsunai as modified by Torasawa teaches the detection device according to claim 1, wherein the light guide unit (Tsunai 902/903) has a transmission section (Tsunai 924) that transmits light (Tsunai, see figure 10, light-transmitting portion 924).
Regarding claim 13, Tsunai as modified by Torasawa teaches the detection device according claim 12, wherein the transmission section (Tsunai 924) has a first end (Tsunai 921) that allows light from the light incidence opening (Tsunai 931) to enter and a second end (Tsunai 922) that emits the light that has entered the first end (Tsunai 921) (Tsunai, see figure 10, light-transmitting portion 924 having entrance port 921 (i.e. first end) and exit port 922 (i.e. second end)).
Regarding claim 14, Tsunai as modified by Torasawa teaches the detection device according to claim 13, wherein an opening of the first end (Tsunai 921) of the transmission section (Tsunai 924) and an opening of the second end (Tsunai 922) are substantially the same size (Tsunai, ¶60, The light guide section 902 has a tubular (cylindrical) structure, such as a light pipe or an optical fiber).
Regarding claim 16, Tsunai as modified by Torasawa teaches the detection device according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of the light guide units (Tsunai 902/903) are disposed such that the light incidence openings (Tsunai 931) thereof are separated from each other (Tsunai, see figure 9, entrance openings 931 (i.e. light incidence openings) separated from one another).
Regarding claim 17, Tsunai as modified by Torasawa teaches the detection device according to claim 16, wherein a plurality of the light guide units (Tsunai 902/903) are disposed radially in directions from the light emission openings (Tsunai 932) towards the light incidence openings (Tsunai 931) (Tsunai, see figure 9, entrance openings 931 (i.e. light incidence openings) disposed radially).
Regarding claim 18, Tsunai as modified by Torasawa teaches the detection device according to claim 16, wherein the detection unit (Tsunai 901 | Torasawa 11) has photodiodes (Torasawa, ¶18, The photoelectric conversion unit 11 is formed by a photodiode), and wherein the photodiodes are arranged in two dimensions (Tsunai, see figure 2, photoelectric conversion units 250; and see ¶18 and ¶¶34-35 for further details).
Regarding claim 19, Tsunai as modified by Torasawa teaches the detection device according to claim 16, wherein the light guide units (Tsunai 902/903) each have a transmission section (Tsunai 924) including a first end (Tsunai 921) that allows light from the light incidence opening (Tsunai 931) to enter and a second end (Tsunai 922) that emits the light that has entered the first end (Tsunai 921) (Tsunai, see figure 10, light-transmitting portion 924 having entrance port 921 (i.e. first end) and exit port 922 (i.e. second end)), and wherein, among the plurality of light guide units (Tsunai 902/903), a light guide unit (Tsunai 902/903) further outside than the light guide unit (Tsunai 902/903) positioned at a center of the detection unit has a shorter length for the transmission section (Tsunai 924) that transmits light from the first end (Tsunai 921) to the second end (Tsunai 922) between the light incidence opening (Tsunai 931) and the light emission opening (Tsunai 922) (Tsunai, see figure 9; and ¶67, Note that the optical path length L1 of each limiting section 903 is the same. Since the distance from the emission port 932 of the limiting section 903 to the photoelectric conversion section 901 differs for each limiting section 903, it is adjusted by the optical path length L2 of the light guide section 902).
Regarding claim 21, Tsunai as modified by Torasawa teaches the detection device according to claim 16, wherein the plurality of light guide units (Tsunai 902/903) are disposed in a substantially semi-spherical arrangement (Tsunai, see figure 9, light guide units 902/903 disposed substantially semi-spherical).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunai (JP 2018011278 A) in view of Torasawa et al. (JP 2020038960 A) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Astratov et al. (USPGPub 20190004212 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Tsunai as modified by Torasawa teaches wherein the light incidence opening (Tsunai 931) and the light emission opening (Tsunai 932) have a polygonal shape (Tsunai, ¶65, The cross-sectional shape of the light-transmitting portion 934 may be a circle or a polygon). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the polygonal shape is a hexagon.
However, Astratov teaches wherein the polygonal shape is a hexagon (see figure 2(b); and ¶32, a micro-cone array 30 with microcones 32 having flat tops 34 and square and hexagonal cross-sections 36 is illustrated in FIGS. 2(a) and 2(b), respectively).
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 combination of Tsunai and Torasawa to incorporate the teachings of Astratov to have the polygonal shape of the light guide unit be hexagonal because the mere change of shape is an obvious matter of choice (MPEP 2144.04 IV B).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunai (JP 2018011278 A) in view of Torasawa et al. (JP 2020038960 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hashimoto et al. (JP 2020177059 A).
Regarding claim 9, Tsunai as modified by Torasawa teaches an internal circumferential surface (Tsunai 936) of the light guide unit (Tsunai 902/903) (Tsunai, see figure 10; and ¶66, any incident light that is not parallel to the optical axis of the lens 803 reaches the side wall 936, where reflection is limited, and preferably absorbed, by the side wall 936). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach a member that reflects light in a direction towards the light incidence opening.
However, Hashimoto teaches a member (211b) that reflects light in a direction towards the light incidence opening (see figure 9, reflection control unit 211b; and ¶65, By forming a reflection control unit 211b in each partition section 21d, as shown in Figure 9(B), some of the light L6 incident from an oblique direction with respect to the normal direction of the sheet surface can be reflected upward (in the Z1 direction)).
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 combination of Tsunai and Torasawa to incorporate the teachings of Hashimoto to further include reflection elements that reflect light back towards the light entrance in order to prevent incoming light from an oblique direction from entering the light sensing element, thereby reducing noise in the sensed image.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunai (JP 2018011278 A) in view of Torasawa et al. (JP 2020038960 A) and Hashimoto et al. (JP 2020177059 A) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Reshetouski et al. (USPGPub 20210041764 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Tsunai as modified by Torasawa and Hashimoto teaches the detection unit (Tsunai 901) and the light emission opening (Tsunai 922) (Tsunai, see figure 9 and 10). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the detection unit is provided in the light emission opening.
However, Reshetouski teaches wherein the detection unit (53) is provided in the light emission opening (51b) (¶53, Although approximately identical in size to the random mask 52 and the imaging element 53, the small opening portion 51b is a size large enough to accommodate the whole of the random mask 52 and the imaging element 53 therein).
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 combination of Tsunai and Torasawa to incorporate the teachings of Reshetouski to provide the detecting unit within the light emission opening because the mere rearrangement of parts that does not modify the function of the device is an obvious matter of choice (MPEP 2144.04 VI C).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunai (JP 2018011278 A) in view of Torasawa et al. (JP 2020038960 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Popovich et al. (USPGPub 20190041634 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Tsunai as modified by Torasawa teaches the detection unit (Tsunai, see figure 9, photoelectric conversion unit 901 (i.e. detection unit); and ¶63, The light-transmitting section 924 emits light that has been incident on the input port 921 from the limiting section 903 to the photoelectric conversion section 901 from the output port 922). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the detection unit is made of indium gallium arsenide.
However, Popovich teaches wherein the detection unit is made of indium gallium arsenide (¶246, An exemplary photodiode for use with the invention is the DPIN-541 InGaAs PIN photodiode chip).
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 combination of Tsunai and Torasawa to incorporate the teachings of Popovich to have the detector consist of InGaAs as these types of detectors are sensitive to NIR and SWIR wavelengths and they provide high quantum efficiency as well as improved low light sensitivity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the detection device according to claims 17, 16, and 1 as claimed, wherein the light guide units each have a transmission section including a first end that allows light from the light incidence opening to enter and a second end that emits the light that has entered the first end, and more specifically in combination with wherein, among the plurality of light guide units, a light guide unit further outside than the light guide unit positioned at a center of the detection unit does not have the transmission section.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN R GARBER whose telephone number is (571)272-4663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1730.
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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at (571)272-2328. 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.
/ERIN R GARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights