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 .
Applicant's submission filed on 12/23/25 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 6, 8-12, 14-17, and 19-22 are pending examination, claims 4-5, 7, 13, 18 and 23 had been canceled by Applicant.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11, 19-21, and 27-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Podgorski et al (US 2017/0341263; hereafter Podgorski) in view of DiChiara, JR (US 2004/0096619; hereafter DiChiara) and Szeweda (US 2014/0200130; hereafter Szeweda).
Claim 1: Podgorski a teaches a method of making a ceramic matrix composite (See, for example, abstract, [0001]), comprising:
Performing a densification cycle on a three-dimensional woven or braided fiber preform (10) in an injection tool (tooling 100) (See, for example, Fig 1-4, abstract, [0010], [0020], [0033-0039], [0048] [0056])
repeatedly performing a densification cycle on a three-dimensional woven or braided fiber preform in an injection tool until a desired characteristic of the preform is achieved,
Injecting into the injection tool, a slurry comprising a solvent, matrix binder (such as polyvinyl alcohol), and solid particles, to cause slurry to infiltrate interstitial spaces of the preform (See, for example, abstract, Fig 2-4, [0046-49]).
removing at least some evaporated solvent from the injection tool by (i) heating the injection tool to a temperature greater than the boiling point of the solvent to evaporate the solvent and less than a curing temperature of the matrix binder to evaporate the solvent without curing the matrix binder (see, for example, [0046], [0052], wherein the heating is taught for evaporation of solvent, and retained green state after drying thus not fully cured).
(ii) applying a pressure (such a compressive and / or via vacuum) to the injection tool to remove at least some of the evaporated solvent from the injection tool (see, for example, [0046-0052],
Podgorski further is concerned with achieving desired matrix/ fiber volume fraction, density / porosity (very small content of macropores), and uniform distribution of the matrix through the fiber reinforcement (see, for example, [0010], [0020], [0033-0039], [0048] [0056]), but does not explicitly teach conducting the densification cycle at least more than once to meet the limitation of repeatedly performing the densification cycle until a desired characteristic of the preform is achieved. DiChiara teaches a method of making a ceramic matrix composite comprising infiltrating a fibrous preform with a slurry having a solvent, matrix binder, and solid particles (see, for example, abstract, [0010-0011]). DiChiara further teaches wherein desired volume fraction (amount of matrix impregnated relative to the fiber preform) and density can be predictably controlled by an iterative process of infiltrating, drying, and determination, but not curing the binder (see, for example, [0012-0013], [0043] further as the final produced CMC naturally possess a finite density, porosity, and fiber volume fraction such a produced characteristic can be interpreted as desired; the alternation of impregnation and drying processes of DiChiara is taught to proceed to a targeted density of 0.45 g/in2, further there exists a recurring step within each iteration of varying the formulation (increasing the viscosity) (as it is increased it involves a determination step, otherwise the step itself, and / or the degree of increase would not have occurred / been known). Similarly the recurring step of determining density must be present in the teaching of DiChiara otherwise there would be no way to know when the repetition of these steps would be ceased). Alternatively, per DiChiara, at the point at which the dried preform proceeds onto to subsequent processing, such as curing, (see, for example [0012-0013], [0043]) the article formed therein would have been determined to possess such a desired density characteristic, otherwise it would have received further infiltration / removing. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated repeatedly performing the densification cycle until a desired characteristic (volume fraction / density / porosity) of the preform is achieved since such an iterative process could improve the control over the articles volume fraction / density / porosity thus enhancing control of its resulting physical / mechanical properties.
By combination, the teaching of DiChiara that the binder is present to cure following the injection and removing stages (see, for example, [0012-0013]) would require that the system does not experience a temperature where the binder would be removed / boil, and as described above wherein interpreting PVA as the binder, its boiling point (228oC) is well above the temperature range disclosed. And Podgorski has taught a variety of solvents and binders, and wherein the temperature of the chamber can be elevated to facilitate exhausting the solvent from the slip by evaporation, such as at a temperature of 80-105oC (see, for example, [0046], [0052]), Although such a range is not explicitly a temperature greater than the boiling point of the solvent and less than the curing point of the binder, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a temperature additionally greater than that of the boiling point of the solvent and less than the curing point of binder since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. (MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Further, with respect to the recently amended limitation of curing the matrix binder after repeatedly performing the densification cycle, Podgorski and DiChiara further teaches curing the slurry after the desired characteristic is achieved (See, for example, abstract, [0011], [0046], [0056], of Podgorski and [0011-14] of DiChiara). Further Podgorski explicitly teaches wherein the binder serves to ensure that the green preform holds together after drying and before sintering (See, for example, [0046], [0056]) further consider for example exemplary polyvinyl alcohol which during thermal treatment to ultimate sintering (at 1000-1200oC) would naturally pass through temperatures curing this binder, thus the binder experiences curing during such thermal treatment). Further DiChiara has taught that curing occurs following completion of the densification cycles and while in contact with a molding surface during curing to maintain orientation and surface conformity (smoothness) (see, for example, [0011-0013]). So if already not anticipated, by the teaching of Podgorski, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed curing the matrix binder after the repeatedly performing the densification cycle since it would predictably ensure suitable strength and retention of shape / orientation and surface smoothness.
Claim 2: Podgorski in view of DiChiara teaches the method of claim 1 (above) and they further teach the removing of at least some of the evaporated solvent from the injection tool comprises exploiting a difference in vapor pressure between the solvent and the matrix binder (See, for example, [0046] and [0052] of Podgorski and [0011-13] of DiChiara, wherein the solvent and the matrix binders are taught as different materials, thus possess differences in vapor pressure, and as evaporation of the solvent proceeds prior to curing, a difference in boiling point temperature and vapor pressure of these material must inherently exist, otherwise the binder would have similarly been effected / evaporated as the solvent, but it did not).
Claim 3: Podgorski in view of DiChiara teaches the method of claim 1 (above) and Podgorski further teaches wherein the applying of pressure includes a vacuum (see, for example, Fig 4, [0051-0052]).
Claim 11: Podgorski in view of DiChiara teaches the method of claim 1 (above) and Podgorski and DiChiara further teaches sintering the preform (See, for example, abstract, [0011], [0046], [0056], of Podgorski and [0011-14] of DiChiara).
Claims 19-20: Podgorski in view of DiChiara teaches the method of claim 1 (above). DiChiara further teaches wherein the solid particles in the slurry are from 50% to 85% by wt and the balance (50% to 15%) is solvent (see, for example, [0041]). Podgorski further teaches the slurry has solid particles (such as alumina, density ~3.95 g/cc) in the range of 27% to 42% vol in solvent (such as water~1g/cc) (see, for example, [0047]; by conversion this vol% range to weight% would be ~59.37 to 74.1% by wt of solids, 40.63-25.9% solvent). If not anticipated by such a range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a concentration within the claimed range since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), and since generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.(MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Claim 21: refer to rejection of claim 20 above, additionally Podgorski has further taught the solids as zirconia (density of ~5.68 g/cc), which would equate to a range of 67.75-80.44% by wt solids, 32.25-19.56 solvent (see, for example, [0047]). Although such ranges are not explicitly those claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a concentration within the claimed range since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), and since generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.(MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Claim 27: Podgorski in view of Dichiara teach the method of claim 1 above, and Podgorski further teaches wherein the injecting of the slurry comprises injecting the slurry through an inlet (injection port 114) of the injection tool, and the applying of the pressure comprises applying the pressure to an outlet (112) of the injection tool (see, for example, Fig 2-4, [0046], [0051])
Claim 28: Podgorski in view of Dichiara teach the method of claim 27 above, and Podgorski further teaches wherein the pressure is a first pressure, and the injecting of the slurry comprises injecting the slurry while applying a second pressure to the outlet of the injection tool to distribute the slurry through the preform (See, for example, Fig 2-4, and [0046-0052]).
Claim 29: Podgorski in view of Dichiara teach the method of claim 27 above, and Podgorski further teaches wherein the injecting of the slurry comprises injecting the slurry through the inlet while a valve is opened, and the applying of the pressure comprises applying the pressure to the outlet of the injection tool while the valve is closed (See, for example, [0046-0049] wherein the valve is closed prior to compaction and subsequent removing operations).
Claim 30: Podgorski in view of Dichiara teach the method of claim 1 above, and Podgorski further teaches allowing the injection tool to cool after applying the pressure to the injection tool (see, for example, [0051-0056]; wherein the heat increase is conducted for a finite period of time, thus upon cessation of such treatment the tool would inherently be allowed to cool, such as during periods of removal, handling, while not in operation, while inserting and / or injecting subsequent samples, etc).
Claim 31: Podgorski in view of Dichiara teach the method of claim 1 above, and Podgorski further teaches wherein the drying is accelerated by performing a combination of heating the injection tool to the temperature and applying a vacuum pressure, but is not specific with respect to the order of instituting these conditions. Although Podgorski in view of Dichiara do not explicitly teach applying of the pressure comprises applying the pressure to the injection tool after heating the injection tool to the temperature, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the claimed order of these beneficial treatments since the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new of unexpected results (In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946)), and since such a sequence is instantly envisioned as there are only three unique orders to institute these two processes (a) simultaneously, b) heating first, or c) pressure first) (A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962)).
Claim(s) 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Podgorski in view of DiChiara as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Szeweda (US 2014/0200130; hereafter Szeweda).
Claim 24: Podgorski further teaches the solid particles are an oxide ceramic material, further silica, and has taught the oxide particles as possessing and average size of D50 of 100 to 300 nm (see, for example, [0026], [0047]). It is silent as to the “size distribution” of such particles, so it does not explicitly teach the claimed range. Szeweda teaches a method of forming ceramic matrix composite structures by impregnating a fiber preform with a pre-ceramic matrix slurry (See, for example, abstract). Szeweda further teaches wherein a predictable silica source for CMC fibrous preform is a silica sol comprising colloidal silica with a desired particle size distribution within a range of 20 to 1000 nm (See, for example, [0030]). As both Podgorski and Szeweda are directed to method of forming ceramic matrix composite structures by impregnating a fiber preform with a pre-ceramic matrix slurry comprising silica, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a particle size distribution 20-1000 nm as such a form is taught to achieve the predictable result of impregnating fibrous preforms and converting upon sintering to achieve CMC formation with a matrix comprising silica, and since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference.
Claim(s) 6, 8-10, 12, 14-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Podgorski in view of DiChiara as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jung et al (US 2013/0221554; hereafter Jung).
Claim 6: Podgorski in view of DiChiara teaches the method of claim 1 (above) and Podgorski further teaches the composition as comprising a solvent as water, ethanol, and any other liquid in combination with the binder but does not explicitly teach isopropyl alcohol or acetone. DiChiara further teaches wherein acetone can predictably be used as an alternative solvent to alcohol in combination with CMC slurries (see, for example, claim 11, [0011])). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated acetone as the solvent since such a solvent would perform predictably with aluminum silicate in a slurry intended for CMC impregnation, and since where two known alternatives are interchangeable for a desired function, an express suggestion to substitute one for the other is not needed to render a substitution obvious. In re Foot, 675 F.2d 297,301 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 568 (CCPA 1967). Podgorski explicitly teaches wherein the binder, such as polyvinyl alcohol, serves to ensure that the green preform holds together after drying and before sintering (See, for example, [0046]), but does not explicitly teach the binder as aluminum silicate or a silane. Jung teaches a method of preparing ceramic composites by forming operations (see, for example, abstract, Fig 1, [0008], [0083]). Jung further teaches wherein binders such as polyvinyl alcohol and TEOS (tetraethoxysilane) serve predictably to retain the shape of green bodies after forming. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated tetraethoxysilane as the binder in the method of Podgorski as it would predictably ensure that the green preform holds together after drying and before sintering and since where two known alternatives are interchangeable for a desired function, an express suggestion to substitute one for the other is not needed to render a substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297,301 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 568 (CCPA 1967).
Claim 8: Podgorski in view of DiChiara, and Jung teaches the method of claim 6 (above). DiChiara further teaches wherein the solid particles in the slurry are from 50% to 85% by wt and the balance (50% to 15%) is solvent (see, for example, [0041]). Podgorski further teaches the slurry can comprise solid particles (such as alumina, density ~3.95 g/cc, or further zirconia (density 5.68)) in the range of 27% to 42% vol in solvent (such as water~1g/cc) (see, for example, [0047]; wherein by conversion this vol% range to weight% could be upwards of ~59.37 to 74.1% by wt of solids, 40.63-25.9% solvent). If not anticipated by such a range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a concentration within the claimed range since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), and since generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.(MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Claim 9: refer to rejection of claim 8 above, additionally Podgorski has further taught the solids as zirconia (density of ~5.68 g/cc), which would equate to a range of upwards of 67.75-80.44% by wt solids, 32.25-19.56 solvent (see, for example, [0047]). Although such ranges are not explicitly those claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a concentration within the claimed range since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), and since generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.(MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Claim 10: Podgorski in view of DiChiara, and Jung teaches the method of claim 8 (above) and Podgorski further teaches the oxide as alumina or zirconia (see, for example, [0047]).
Claim 12: Refer to the rejections of claims 1 and 6 above. Podgorski further teaches the composition as comprising a solvent as water, in combination with silica (see, for example, [0046-47]); and Jung has taught the binder as silane (tetraethoxysilane) (see rejection of claim 6).
Claims 14-15: refer to the rejections of claims 8-9 and 12 above).
Claim 17: Podgorski in view of DiChiara, and Jung teaches the method of claim 12 (above) and Podgorski and DiChiara further teaches sintering the preform (See, for example, abstract, [0011], [0046], [0056], of Podgorski and [0011-14] of DiChiara).
Claim(s) 16, and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Podgorski in view of DiChiara and Jung as applied to claims 6 and 12 above, and further in view of Szeweda.
Claim 16: Refer to the rejections of claim 12 over Podgorski in view of DiChiara and Jung and the rejection of claim 24 over Podgorski in view of Dichiara and Szeweda (above). Podgorski further teaches the solid particles are an oxide ceramic material, further silica, and has taught the oxide particles as possessing and average size of D50 of 100 to 300 nm (see, for example, [0026], [0047]). As described in the rejection of claim 24 (above), Szeweda has taught wherein a predictable silica source for CMC fibrous preform is a silica sol comprising colloidal silica with a desired particle size distribution within a range of 20 to 1000 nm (See, for example, [0030]). As both Podgorski and Szeweda are directed to method of forming ceramic matrix composite structures by impregnating a fiber preform with a pre-ceramic matrix slurry comprising silica, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a colloidal silica with a particle size distribution 20-1000 nm as such a silica material form is taught to achieve the predictable result of impregnating fibrous preforms and converting upon sintering to achieve CMC formation with a matrix comprising silica, and since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference.
Claims 25-26: Refer to the rejections of claims 6 and 12 over Podgorski in view of DiChiara and Jung and the rejection of claim 24 over Podgorski in view of Dichiara and Szeweda (above).
Claims 1-3, 11, 19-21 and 27-31 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Podgorski in view of DiChiara as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lespade et al (US 5,126,087; hereafter Lespade).
Claim 1: Podgorski in view of DiChiara teaches the method of claim 1 (above) wherein DiChiara has taught repeating the infiltrating and removing the solvent until a desired characteristic of the preform is achieved, further wherein such repetition involves determination / varying of slurry formulation (See, for example, [0012-0013], [0043] and above). DiChiara does not explicitly teach wherein the repeated process is based on the fiber volume fraction of the preform. Lespade teaches a method of repeated infiltration and drying to form composite articles (See, for example, abstract, col 2 lines 45-55, claim 9). Lespade teaches wherein it well known in the art that achieving desired take up values can be achieved by repetition of the impregnation cycles until a desired fiber volume fraction is achieved (see, for example, col 2 lines 45-55, claim 9). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the determination of desired fiber volume fraction as basing the endpoint of an impregnation process by such a dried characteristic of the pregreg is well known in the art to predictably aid in achieving the desired target takeup.
Claims 2-3, 11, 19-21, and 27-31: refer to the rejection of claim 1 over Podgorski in view of DiChiara, and Lespade above, and the rejections of claims 2-3, 11, 19-21, and 27-31 over Podgorski in view of DiChiara above.
Claim(s) 6, 8-10, 12, 14-15 and 17 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Podgorski in view of DiChiara, and Jung as applied to claims 6, 8-12, 14-15, and 17 above, and further in view of Lespade.
Claims 6, 8-10, 12, 14-15 and 17: refer to the rejection of claim 1 over Podgorski in view of Dichiara, and Lespade above, and the rejection of claims 6, 8-10, 12, 14-15 and 17 over Podgorski in view of DiChiara, and Jung above.
Claim(s) 16, and 25-26 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Podgorski in view of DiChiara, Jung, and Szeweda as applied to claims 16 and 25-26 above, and further in view of Lespade.
Claims 16 and 25-26: refer to the rejection of claim 1 over Podgorski in view of Dichiara, and Lespade above, and the rejection of claims 16 and 25-26 over Podgorski in view of DiChiara, Jung, and Szeweda above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments that the references do not teach the newly added limitations are unconvincing in view of newly-incorporated Podgorski, as discussed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN H EMPIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30AM - 4 PM.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/NATHAN H EMPIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712