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 16 July 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5: “the radiation” in line 2 should be “the electromagnetic radiation” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 6: “the radiation” in line 2 should be “the electromagnetic radiation” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 7: “one of the radiation sources” in line 2 should be “one of the at least two radiation sources” 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 limitations use 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 limitations are:
“a deflection element to…” in claim 1: a mirror (¶14, The deflection element can comprise a mirror, in particular).
“an optical element for…” in claim 12: there is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the specification.
“a validation element for…” in claim 15: a white reference, filter, or filter wheel (¶17, This validation element can be manifested by a white reference or can be a filter or filter wheel, for example).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 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 1, “radiation” in line 5 is unclear. Is this limitation referring to the electromagnetic radiation mentioned previously or a different radiation? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the electromagnetic radiation mentioned previously.
Claims 2-15 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, “radiation” in line 2 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 1, on which claim 7 is dependent” is this limitation referring to the same radiation (i.e. the electromagnetic radiation) mentioned previously or a different radiation? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same radiation (i.e. the electromagnetic radiation) mentioned previously.
Claim 8 is rejected for its dependency on claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, “electromagnetic radiation” in line 2 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 1, on which claim 9 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same electromagnetic radiation mentioned previously or a different electromagnetic radiation? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same electromagnetic radiation mentioned previously (specifically the electromagnetic radiation emanating from the material sample).
Claims 10-11 are rejected for their dependency on claim 9.
Regarding claim 12, “the observation region” in line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis and is therefore unclear.
Claims 13-14 are rejected for their dependency on claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, “a detector” in line 1 is unclear as at least one detector has been mentioned previously in claim 1, on which claim 13 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the at least one detector mentioned previously or a different detector? In light of the specification, specifically ¶29, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the at least one detector mentioned previously.
Regarding claim 15, “the radiation path” in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis and is therefore unclear.
Claim limitation “an optical element” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Double Patenting
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, and 10 of copending Application No. 19/203,121 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 1, claims 1, 7, and 10 of application 19/203,121 teach a device for analyzing material samples via electromagnetic radiation (see claim 1, lines 1-2), the device comprising: at least two radiation sources to generate the electromagnetic radiation (see claim 1, lines 3-4); a deflection element to deflect the electromagnetic radiation onto the material sample (see claim 7), radiation from at least one of the at least two radiation sources being selectively directable onto the material sample via the deflection element (see claim 7); and at least one detector to detect the electromagnetic radiation emanating from the material sample (see claim 1, lines 6-7), wherein the deflection element is rotatable about an axis substantially parallel to a direction of propagation of the deflected radiation (see claim 10).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Berthold et al. (EP 3614130 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Berthold teaches a device for analyzing material samples via electromagnetic radiation (¶4, the sample is exposed to light (excitation light) with defined properties (e.g., fluorescence intensity ...B. with a specific excitation wavelength) and thereby generates fluorescent light. The fluorescence light emitted from the sample, which is normally shifted to longer wavelengths (lower energies) compared to the excitation light and is often also referred to as emission light, is directed to a photosensitive detector in a detection path (also called emission path) and the resulting intensities are measured), the device comprising: at least two radiation sources (LQ1/LQ2) to generate the electromagnetic radiation (see figure 2, light sources LQ1 and LQ2; and ¶45, two light sources LQ1, LQ2 can be seen diametrically opposite each other to the principal axis…they emit radiation); a deflection element (KO) to deflect the electromagnetic radiation onto the material sample (MP1) (see figure 2, coupling optics KO; and ¶47, The coupling optics KO is designed as a reflective coupling optics or as a mirror system in such a way that for each of the light sources, the light running along its direction of incidence is reflected at a mirror surface of the coupling optics and reflected in one and the same focal point, namely the measuring position MP1), radiation from at least one of the at least two radiation sources (LQ1/LQ2) being selectively directable onto the material sample (MP1) via the deflection element (KO) (see figure 2, coupling optics KO; and ¶12, A coupling device serves to selectively couple light from at least one selected light source of the light source arrangement into the measuring position); wherein the deflection element (KO) is a mirror (¶47, The coupling optics KO is designed as a reflective coupling optics or as a mirror system); and at least one detector (DET/DET2) to detect the electromagnetic radiation emanating from the material sample (MP1) (see figures 1 and 2, detectors DET and DET2; and ¶11, The device has at least one photosensitive detector for converting incident light into electrical signals that can be evaluated), wherein the deflection element (KO) is rotatable about an axis substantially parallel to a direction of propagation of the deflected radiation (see figure 7C; and ¶24, It is also possible that the coupling optics have a deflecting mirror rotatably mounted around a rotational axis, which can be moved into different reflection positions by means of an actuator in order to selectively reflect the radiation of the excitation light arriving from different directions into the measuring position).
Regarding claim 2, Berthold teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least two of the radiation sources (LQ1/LQ2) are substantially the same (¶45, two light sources LQ1, LQ2 can be seen diametrically opposite each other to the principal axis… they emit radiation in spectrally separate, different wavelength ranges, but this is not mandatory).
Regarding claim 3, Berthold teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least two of the radiation sources (LQ1/LQ2) are designed in different ways (¶45, two light sources LQ1, LQ2 can be seen diametrically opposite each other to the principal axis… they emit radiation in spectrally separate, different wavelength ranges, but this is not mandatory).
Regarding claim 4, Berthold teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the deflection element (KO) has beam shaping properties (¶49, The coupling optics can have a cone-shaped mirror surface, so that the mirror surfaces are convexly curved at the points of impact of the incident light rays. Concave or focusing mirror surfaces or flat mirror surfaces can also be used at the impact areas).
Regarding claim 5, Berthold teaches the device as claimed in claim 4, wherein the deflection element (KO) has a focusing effect on the radiation (¶49, The coupling optics can have a cone-shaped mirror surface, so that the mirror surfaces are convexly curved at the points of impact of the incident light rays. Concave or focusing mirror surfaces or flat mirror surfaces can also be used at the impact areas; and Note: concave mirrors focus light).
Regarding claim 6, Berthold teaches the device as claimed in claim 4, wherein the deflection element (KO) has a defocusing effect on the radiation (¶49, The coupling optics can have a cone-shaped mirror surface, so that the mirror surfaces are convexly curved at the points of impact of the incident light rays. Concave or focusing mirror surfaces or flat mirror surfaces can also be used at the impact areas; and Note: convex mirrors disperse (i.e. defocus) light).
Regarding claim 7, Berthold teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the deflection element (KO) comprises a mirror, via which radiation from one of the radiation sources (LQ1/LQ2) is selectively directable onto the material sample (MP1) (see figure 2, coupling optics KO; ¶47, The coupling optics KO is designed as a reflective coupling optics or as a mirror system; and ¶12, A coupling device serves to selectively couple light from at least one selected light source of the light source arrangement into the measuring position).
Regarding claim 8, Berthold teaches the device as claimed in claim 7, wherein the mirror (KO) is a concave mirror (¶49, The coupling optics can have a cone-shaped mirror surface, so that the mirror surfaces are convexly curved at the points of impact of the incident light rays. Concave or focusing mirror surfaces or flat mirror surfaces can also be used at the impact areas).
Regarding claim 15, Berthold teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein a validation element (EF) for calibrating the device and/or for validating measurements is present in the radiation path downstream of the deflection element (KO); wherein the validation element (EF) is one of a white reference, a filter, or a filter wheel (¶39, The components of the detection beam path DTS include a parabolic mirror PS (to be explained later), a coupling device EK (to be explained later) with a coupling optic KO on the main axis HA of the device, and an emission filter arrangement with an emission filter EF that can be optionally inserted into the detection beam path).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berthold et al. (EP 3614130 A1) in view of Mita et al. (JP S61265557 A).
Regarding claim 9, Berthold teaches the deflection element (KO) (see figure 2). However, Berthold fails to explicitly teach wherein the deflection element has an opening for passage of electromagnetic radiation.
However, Mita teaches wherein the deflection element (3) has an opening (31/33) for passage of electromagnetic radiation (see figures 1(a) and 1(c), mirror 3 having light-transmitting region 31 which can be an opening 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Berthold to incorporate the teachings of Mita to further provide an opening through the deflection element in order to allow light to pass through unobstructed to a detector, while maintaining a compact arrangement.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berthold et al. (EP 3614130 A1) in view of Mita et al. (JP S61265557 A) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Enomoto et al. (USPGPub 20230150870 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Berthold as modified by Mita teaches wherein the deflection element (Berthold KO | Mita 3) comprises an opening (Mita 31/33) (Mita, see figures 1(a) and 1(c)). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein an end face of an optical waveguide or a fiber is arranged in a region of the opening.
However, Enomoto teaches wherein an end face of an optical waveguide or a fiber is arranged in a region of the opening (21) (see figure 1, mirror 20 having side opening 21; and ¶39, the flat reflection mirror 20 and the guide member 30 have a guide hole 30a through which the coated fiber passes, and the flat reflection mirror 20 has an output-side opening 21 of the guide hole 30a. The coated fiber passes through from an input-side opening 31 of the guide hole 30a to the output-side opening 21 provided in the flat reflection mirror 20).
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 Berthold and Mita to incorporate the teachings of Enomoto to further include an optical fiber in the opening as this is merely another means of passing light, and in addition, optical fibers experience low signal attenuation.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berthold et al. (EP 3614130 A1) in view of Mita et al. (JP S61265557 A) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Endo (JP 2001015414 A).
Regarding claim 11, Berthold as modified by Mita teaches wherein the deflection element (Berthold KO | Mita 3) comprises an opening (Mita 31/33) (Mita, see figures 1(a) and 1(c)). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein a light guide rod is arranged in a region of the opening.
However, Endo teaches wherein a light guide rod (56) is arranged in a region of the opening (92a) (see figure 7, mirror 92 having an opening 92a in which a light guide rod 56 is disposed).
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 Berthold and Mita to incorporate the teachings of Endo to further include a light guide rod in the opening as this is merely another means of passing light, and in addition, light guide rods experience low signal attenuation.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berthold et al. (EP 3614130 A1) in view of Bugge (USPGPub 20100290032 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Berthold teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one detector (DET/DET2) is arranged on a side of the observation region provided for the material sample (MP1) which faces away from the deflection element (KO) (see figures 1 and 2, DET2 disposed below measuring position MP1 (i.e. material sample) on the side away from deflection element KO). However, Berthold fails to explicitly teach wherein an optical element for focusing the electromagnetic radiation emanating from the material sample is arranged over the at least one detector.
However, Bugge teaches wherein an optical element (16) for focusing the electromagnetic radiation emanating from the material sample (10a-10c) is arranged over the at least one detector (15) (see figures 1 and 2, detector 15 located below objects 10a-10c, opposite the rotating mirror 12 (i.e. deflection element), having a lens 16; and ¶58, An improvement of this can be seen in FIG. 2, which uses a collector lens 16 (refractive or diffractive lens) which means that the detector can be arranged at its focal point).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Berthold to incorporate the teachings of Bugge to further include a focusing element in order to focus light onto the detector, providing a strong detection signal.
Regarding claim 13, Berthold as modified by Bugge teaches the device as claimed in claim 12, wherein a detector (Berthold DET/DET2 | Bugge 15) is arranged in a region of a focus of the optical element (Bugge 16) (Bugge, ¶58, An improvement of this can be seen in FIG. 2, which uses a collector lens 16 (refractive or diffractive lens) which means that the detector can be arranged at its focal point).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berthold et al. (EP 3614130 A1) in view of Bugge (USPGPub 20100290032 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Cyr et al. (USPGPub 20040196459 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Berthold as modified by Bugge teaches the focus of the optical element (Bugge 16) (Bugge, see figures 1 and 2). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein an end face of an optical waveguide is arranged in the region of the focus of the optical element.
However, Cyr teaches wherein an end face (12) of an optical waveguide (14) is arranged in the region of the focus of the optical element (26) (see figure 1, lens assembly 26 (i.e. optical element) focusing light into optical fiber 14 via input face 12).
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 Berthold and Bugge to incorporate the teachings of Cyr to further include an optical fiber in the focus region as this is merely another means of passing light that provides low signal attenuation, and in addition, allows flexibility in the detector placement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Calcoen et al. (USPGPub 20190369307 A1): Calcoen teaches a mirror element (80/82) with an opening (83) therethrough (see figure 7).
Disch (EP 3321658 B1): Disch teaches an optical measuring device having a verification and calibration filter wheel (50), with descriptions on why a filter has a calibration and verification function (see figure 1; and ¶24, Since the absorption of such filters is known, the desired control can be achieved).
Balthasar et al. (USPGPub 20160252461 A1): Balthasar teaches an optical inspection device with a rotating deflection element (151) and multiple light sources (101/102) and a detector (131) (see figures 1 and 2).
Osgood et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6355934 B1): Osgood teaches an imaging scanner having a mirror (40) having an opening (43) (see figure 1).
Andrash et al. (SU 1333243 A3): Andrash teaches a spectrophotometer having two light sources (2) selectively transmitted to a sample (10) having a rotating mirror (5) with detection elements (9/12) (see figure).
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