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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant filed a response on 05/12/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments were fully considered but were not found persuasive.
Applicant argues:
“Marchal
Marchal discloses a compaction assembly and a process for manufacturing a turbomachine
blade. However, Marchal does not disclose:
• wherein the step of pressurizing the preform and heating the preform is performed at
a pressure of 3 to 10 bars and a temperature of l 80°C; and
• wherein the substep of partially opening the equipment is carried out by extending the countermold by a predetermined distance from the mold, the mold and the countermold remaining substantially interlocked with one another in such a way that an external lateral wall of the countermold is in direct contact with an internal lateral wall of the mold.
Otsuki
Otsuki is directed to a method and a device for molding composite material. In this regard,
Otsuki discloses a method for producing a part by injecting resin into a woven fiber preform, the
method comprising the steps of:
• shaping the preform (column 4, lines 1-20);
• forming the preform (column 4, lines 1-20); and
• injecting resm (step S5 figure 2; column 7, lines 31-32) into the preform by an
equipment comprising a mold 220 (lower mold element of the mold 200, figure 3B), a
countermold 210 (upper mold element of the mold 200, figure 3B), and means 500 for
injecting resin (resin injection unit, see column 13, line 55), wherein injecting resin into
the preform and molding comprises the substeps of:
partially opening the equipment by moving one of the mold 220 and the
countermold 210 away from the other of the mold and the countermold;
injecting resin into the equipment (column 7, line 62);
closing the equipment, by bringing one of the mold 220 and the countermold
210 closer to the other of the mold 220 and the countermold 210.
However, Otsuki does not disclose:
• wherein the step of pressurizing the preform and heating the preform is performed at a pressure of 3 to 10 bars and a temperature of 180°C. There is no passage in Otsuki mentioning said feature;
• pressurizing the impregnated preform between the mold and the countermold, and heating the impregnated preform between the mold and the countermold and by the
mold and the countermold. Indeed, there is no passage in Otsuki mentioning pressing and heating an impregnated preform. In Otsuki, as stated in column 8 (lines 59-67) "In step S6, as illustrated in FIG. 3D, the mold 200 is clamped. .. Clamping the mold 200 allows the gap G to be compressed between the first molding surface 211S of the upper mold element 210 and the reinforcing base material 11, and the resin 12 staying in the gap G is pressed to impregnate the entire reinforcing base material 11", the resin 12 is pressed by the countermold 210 to impregnate the preform 11. Once the impregnated preform is obtained, the resin is cured by a heating process column 9, lines 19-22 " .. .In step S7, the resin 12 is cured when the resin 12 is a thermoset resin, the resin 12 can be cured by heating the mold 200, for example, using a heating device such as a heater.". Therefore, there is clearly not a step in Otsuki mentioning that the impregnated preform ( obtained after pressurizing the resin) is pressed. Moreover, the resin 12 is cured by a heating device and not by the mold and the countermold; or
• wherein the substep of partially opening equipment is carried out by extending the countermold by a predetermined distance from the mold, the mold and the
countermold remaining substantially interlocked with one another in such a way
that an external lateral wall of the countermold is in direct contact with an internal
lateral wall of the mold.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments related to Otsuki.
The rejection as presented relies upon Marshal modified by Otsuki, Dambrine, and TDS.
Otsuki is relied upon for the teachings of a conventional and suitable resin transfer molding technique where resin is injected into a mold cavity between a mold and countermold that are brought together and the equipment is clamped to liquid-tightly seal the cavity (Col 7, LN 8-40 and Figures 3C and 3D). Otsuki indeed teaches heating to cure the resin-infused material (Col 8, ln 19-37; step 7) and pressurizing the preform through evacuation and clamping (Figures 3C and 3D; Col 9, ln 23-37; step 8).
Otsuki is not relied upon for the specific parameters for pressurization and heating the preform. Dambine and TDS is relied upon for teachings of a conventional thermosetting resin used in composite turbomachine blade and the appropriate parameters for curing the particular thermosetting resin.
Marchal teaches shaping the preform [0041]; forming the preform [0075]-[0076], [0083]; and injecting resin into the preform by equipment comprising a mold, a countermold, and means for injecting resin [0037], [0075]-[0079] in a single item of equipment [0086]. Therefore, Marchal in view of Otsuki, Dambrine, and TDS teaches performing the steps of shaping and forming the preform and injecting resin into the preform in the same mold.
Otsuki teaches injecting resin into the cavity of the mold after the mold is clamped and sealed and a gap exists between the molding surfaces of the molds (Col 8, ln 59- Col 9, ln 10). Otsuki teaches compressing the mold such that the resin in the gap is pressed to spread through and impregnate the entire reinforcing base material. injecting resin into the gap and pressing to impregnate the entire reinforcing base material to readily spread the resin (Col 8, ln 59- Col 9, ln 10).
Accordingly, given that the mold is completely closed in the forming step prior to injecting and the upper and lower molds are partially separated at the time of injection in the process of Marchal in view of Otsuki, Dambrine, and TDS, the process would naturally require partially opening the equipment by moving one of the mold and countermold away from the other prior to injecting. Accordingly, before injecting resin, the equipment would be partially opened by extending the countermold by a predetermined distance from the mold, the mold and the countermold remaining substantially interlocked with one another in such a way that an external lateral wall of the countermold is in direct contact with an internal lateral wall of the mold.
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.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for injecting resin” in claim 1 and “means for suctioning air and injecting resin” in claim 2. “Means for injecting resin” is interpreted a piston, pressure pot, or pipes [0011] and [0013] and their equivalents. “Means for suctioning air and injecting resin” is interpreted as port in the mold [0055] and its equivalents.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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 1-5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchal (FR 3024959, PG-PUB 2016/0288380 relied upon for English translation) in view of Otsuki (US 11,292,214), Dambrine (US 7,101,154); and CYCOM ® PR 520 RTM Technical Data Sheet (hereinafter referred to as TDS, publicly available on 03/19/2012).
Regarding claim 1, Marchal teaches a process of producing a part by injecting resin into a woven fiber preform, the method comprising the steps of:
shaping the preform [0041];
forming the preform [0075]-[0076], [0083]; and
injecting resin into the preform by equipment comprising a mold, a countermold,
and means for injecting resin, wherein injecting resin into the preform and molding comprises the substeps of:
injecting resin into the equipment [0037], [0075]-[0079];
pressurizing and heating the impregnated preform between the mold and the
countermold and by the mold and the countermold, and heating the impregnated preform between the mold and the countermold and by the mold and the countermold [0037], [0077], [0086],
wherein said steps are carried out by means of a single item of equipment [0086].
Marchal does not teach (1) partially opening the equipment by moving one of the mold and countermold; injecting resin; and then closing the equipment by bringing one of the mold or countermold closer, wherein partially opening the equipment is carried out by extending the countermold by a predetermined distance from the mold, the mold and the countermold remaining substantially interlocked with one another in such a way that an external lateral wall of the counter mold is in direct contact with an internal lateral wall of the mold and (2) the step of pressurizing the preform and heating the preform is performed at a pressure of 3 to 10 bars and a temperature of 180°C.
Dambrine teaches a process of manufacturing a composite turbomachine blade from a woven preform, wherein the preform is injected with a high performance epoxy resin sold under PR520 by the supplier Cytec (Col 22, Ln 38-40) under vacuum infusion or RTM liquid injection (Col 23, Ln 2-10).
TDS disclosing the following procedure for using PR 520 RTM resin (Page 2 and 3):
lock vents and continue injection to a positive pressure of 2.5 – 14.0 bar (37 – 204 psi);
once mold is full (as indicated by pressure being reached) purge each vent to remove entrapped air;
repeat until resin at vents is bubble free; and
initiate cure cycle of 2 °C (3.5 °F) per minute to 180 ± 5 °C (355 ± 9 °F) and hold for 120 minutes while maintaining a positive pressure of 2.5 – 14.0 bar (37 – 204 psi) for at least 30 minutes of the cure dwell.
Otsuki teaches a process of molding a composite material, wherein resin transfer molding is performed on a preform (Col 3, ln 58- Col 4, ln 30 and Figures 3A-3E), wherein the process can be used to produce a variety of composites, such as an outer panel or a composite with a complicated shape (Col 9, Ln 42-50). Otsuki teaches resin is injected into a mold cavity between a mold and countermold that are brought together and the equipment is clamped to liquid-tightly seal the cavity (Col 7, LN 8-40 and Figures 3C and 3D), wherein by clamping the equipment, pressure is applied such that the entire reinforcing base material is impregnated (Coll 8, Ln 63- Col 9, Ln 10). Otsuki teaches the equipment would be partially opened by extending the countermold by a predetermined distance from the mold, the mold and the countermold remaining substantially interlocked with one another in such a way that an external lateral wall of the countermold is in direct contact with an internal lateral wall of the mold (Figures 3C and 3D), as interlocking the mold and countermold prevents leakage of the resin (Col 8, Ln 62 – Col 9, ln 10). Otsuki teaches pressurizing the preform (Col 9, Ln 27-36) and heating the preform (Col 9, Ln 18-20).
Both Marchal and Dambrine are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to manufacturing a composite turbomachine blade from resin infusion of a woven fiber. Both Marchal and Otsuki are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to resin infusing a fibrous preform to manufacture a composite.
As Marchal is silent to the resin infusion technique used and the mold configuration needed to perform this technique, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to look elsewhere in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Marchal with the RTM technique of Otsuki, a conventional resin infusion technique for manufacturing a turbomachine blade as taught by Dambrine. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the process of Marchal with the equipment of Otsuki in order to provide the configurations for performing the RTM process, including interlocking and sealing the mold and countermold, applying vacuum to the cavity, injecting resin into the evacuated cavity, and compacting injected resin into the preform after injection to ensure complete infusion as taught by Otsuki.
Given that the mold is completely closed in the forming step prior to injecting and the upper and lower molds are partially separated at the time of injection, the process of Marchal in view of Dambrine and Otsuki would require partially opening the equipment by moving one of the mold and countermold away from the other prior to injecting. Accordingly, before injecting resin, the equipment would be partially opened by extending the countermold by a predetermined distance from the mold, the mold and the countermold remaining substantially interlocked with one another in such a way that an external lateral wall of the countermold is in direct contact with an internal lateral wall of the mold.
Both Marchal and Dambrine are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to resin infusion of a woven fiber preform to manufacture a composite turbomachine blade. As Marchal is silent to the binder injected, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to look elsewhere in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify Marchal with PR520 as taught by Dambrine, a known suitable resin for resin infusion of a preform for manufacturing a composite turbomachine blade.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the parameters, including the level of pressure and heat applied during pressurization, as disclosed in the TDS for the RTM infusion of PR520 as desired in the process of Marchal in view of Dambrine and Otsuki.
Accordingly, given that Marchal in view of Dambrine, Otsuki, and TDS teaches a pressure range of 2.5 to 14.0 bar, which fully encompasses the claimed range of 3 to 10 bars, the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05).
Accordingly, given that Marchal in view of Dambrine, Otsuki, and TDS teaches a max temperature range 180 ± 5 °C during curing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select within the claimed range a cure temperature of 180°C.
Regarding claim 2, Marchal in view of Dambrine, Otsuki, and TDS teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein said steps of shaping the preform, forming the preform, and injecting resin into the preform are carried out by means of said equipment (Marchal, [0086]), said mold cavity defining a cavity configured to implement the step of shaping the preform and the equipment further comprising means for suctioning air and injecting resin (Otsuki, Col 6, Ln 33- Col 7, ln 6).
Regarding claim 3, Marchal in view of Dambrine, Otsuki, and TDS teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein before the step of shaping the preform, the steps of:
producing the preform by weaving fibers (Marchal, [0022]-[0023]); and
sizing the preform (Marchal, [0024]).
Regarding claim 4, Marchal in view of Dambrine, Otsuki, and TDS teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the step of shaping the preform comprises the substeps of humidifying the preform (Marchal, [0041]) and positioning the preform back in the cavity of the mold after drying in an oven (Marchal, [0041]).
Regarding claim 5, Marchal in view of Dambrine, Otsuki, and TDS teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the step of forming the preform comprises the substeps of closing the equipment (Marchal, [0075]-[0076]) and heating (Marchal, [0075]-[0076]).
Marchal in view of Dambrine, Otsuki, and TDS does not explicitly teach putting the preform under vacuum between the mold and counter mold during the step of forming.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that in order to close the equipment of Marchal modified by Otsuki for the purpose of shaping the preform, gas would have to be vented from the equipment. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the vacuum mechanism of Otsuki in order to evacuate the equipment such that the mold and countermold can be coupled and the preform can be shaped (Otsuki, Col 8, Ln 52-62 and Col 9, Ln 24-37).
Regarding claim 7, Marchal in view of Dambrine, Otsuki, and TDS teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the resin is injected through a port of the equipment (Otsuki, Col 7, Ln 62-Col 8, ln 17), and the vacuum is produced by suctioning air through another port (Otsuki, Col 8, Ln 52-62 and Col 9, Ln 24-37).
Regarding claim 8, Marchal in view of Dambrine, Otsuki, and TDS is applied to claim 1, wherein said steps are carried out by means of a single item of equipment (Marchal, [0086]).
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchal (FR 3024959, PG-PUB 2016/0288380 relied upon for English translation) in view of Otsuki (US 11,292,214), Dambrine (US 7,101,154); and TDS (Publicly available on 03/19/2012), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Risicato (PG-PUB 2019/0255738) and Epotek (Available 2012).
Regarding claim 12, Marchal in view of Dambrine, Otsuki, and TDS teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein an epoxide type tackifying agent allows for the possibility, under the effect of heat and pressure exerted during the pre-compaction step, of having the woven carbon fibers adhere to each other in order to avoid the pre-deformed preform undergoing any subsequent deformation in the injection step (Marchal, [0042]).
Marchal in view of Dambrine, Otsuki, and TDS does not explicitly teach forming the preform is performed at a temperature of 100 degrees Celsius.
Risicato teaches a woven preform [0016], [0018] compacted before infusion or injection [0005]-[0006] for deploying the preform and fixing the deployed configuration [0013]-[0014]. Risicato teaches heating and pressing the pre-coated preform to a softening temperature [0020], [00421], which may respond to its Tg [0020].
White teaches a process to make composites, utilizing tackifiers (Abstract). White teaches the glass transition temperature of a tackifier should be low enough that the preform can be shaped without over-curing the tackifier (Col 3, Ln 52-67). White teaches an epoxy tackifier that has a glass transition temperature no more than about 150 degrees Celsius, preferably no more than about 100 degrees Celsius (Col 3, Ln 52-67).
Both Marchal and Risicato are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to manufacturing a composite from a woven preform with coated with a sizing composition, the steps including a step of pre-compaction before resin infusion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Marchal with a step of heating the preform to its Tg in the precompaction step as taught by Risicato for the purpose of fixing the preform in its deployed state for improved stability during resin infusion as desired by Marchal and taught by Risicato.
As Marchal is silent to the particular epoxy tackifier used or its Tg, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to look elsewhere in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Marchal modified by Risicato with the glass transition temperature of a known suitable epoxy-based tackifier as taught by White and as desired by Marchal, to yield the predictable result of preparing a preform at a suitable temperature.
Given that the process of Marchal modified by Risicato and White teaches utilizing preform shaping temperature of the glass transition temperature of the epoxy-based tackifier of about 100 degrees Celsius, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select 100 degrees Celsius within the prior art range.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchal (FR 3024959, PG-PUB 2016/0288380 relied upon for English translation) in view of Otsuki (US 11,292,214), Dambrine (US 7,101,154); and TDS (Publicly available on 03/19/2012), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Lee (“Resin Transfer Molding (RTM) Process of a High Performance Epoxy Resin II: Effects of Process Variables on the Physical, Static, and Mechanical Behavior,” POLYMER ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE, APRIL 2000, Vol. 40, No. 4).
Regarding claim 13, Marchal in view of Dambrine, Otsuki, and TDS teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein PR520 can be injected at a temperature as low as 90-100 degrees Celsius (TDS, Page 3).
Marchal in view of Dambrine, Otsuki, and TDS does not teach the step of injecting the resin is performed at a temperature of 150 °C.
Lee teaches a resin transfer molding process of a high performance epoxy resin to form epoxy-based glass fabric composites using PR500 resin. Lee teaches an injection temperature of 150°C was found to be an injection temperature suitable for RTM processing and a complete wet out the fabric preform (Table, Page 937, and Page 940). Lee teaches 160°C was found to provide optimal resin flow and mechanical behavior in the composite attained under 392 kPa injection pressure. Lee teaches Variations in injection pressure and temperature were found to have a significant effect on the quality and the mechanical performance of composites (Abstract). Lee teaches the injection temperature is an important parameter in determining the mechanical behavior (Page 940) and the fabric structure plays an important role in the flow pattern, filling time and void formation during the mold filling stage (Page 943).
Both Marchal in view of Dambrine, Otsuki, and TDS and Lee are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to PR520 RTM. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Marchal with the known suitable resin injection temperature of Lee to yield the predictable result of infusing PR520 into a preform for manufacturing a composite with high mechanical strength.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached on 5712721095. 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.
/HANA C PAGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights