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 .
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 1-5, 21-26, 29, 33-34, 37, 42, 47-49 and 51-52 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.
In claim 1, it is not definite what is meant by “wherein a microstructure of the aluminum based material, the HAZ and the resolidification zone are identical.” There is a lack of agreement between the singular term “a microstructure” and the plural form of the verb “are” such that it is not definite what is referred to or how many microstructure(s) there are in this recitation. In addition, the quoted language does not specific what the “identical” refers to (e.g., the claim does not recite “are identical to each other”). Furthermore, claim 1 recites “aluminum based materials” and “a first piece of aluminum based material in contact with a second piece of aluminum material” such that there are multiple aluminum based materials claimed. However, the indefinite wherein clause refers to “the aluminum based material” such that it is not definite which aluminum based material(s) are referred to.
In claim 2, it is not definite what is meant by “the identical microstructures show no discernable difference in the weld that would indicate a weakness in the weld.” The term “no discernable difference” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “no discernable difference” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In claim 2, the recitation of “the identical microstructures show no discernable difference in the weld that would indicate a weakness in the weld” is not definite. It is also not definite how claim 2 may further limit claim 1, since claim 1 already recites “a microstructure of the aluminum based material, the HAZ and the resolidification zone are identical”.
In claim 3, it is not definite what is meant by “the identical microstructure comprises crystal growth regions of similar size.” It is not definite how to the many microstructure(s) are referred to or how it or they can be identical and also similar in size. In other words, if the microstructures are identical, it follows that they would be identical in size, not similar, unless the microstructures are identical in a more specific way that is not claimed.
Claims 23-25 include recitations of “the aluminum based material.” However, claim 23 recites “aluminum based materials” and “a first piece of aluminum based material in contact with a second piece of aluminum material” such that it is not definite what “the aluminum based material” refers to.
In claim 23, it is not definite what is meant by “a microstructure of the aluminum based material, the HAZ and the resolidification zone are identical.” There is a lack of agreement between the singular term “a microstructure” and the plural form of the verb “are” such that it is not definite what is referred to or how many microstructure(s) there are in this recitation. In addition, the quoted language does not specific what the “identical” refers to (e.g., the claim does not recite “are identical to each other”).
In claim 26, it is not definite what is meant by “the identical microstructures show no discernable difference in the weld that would indicate a weakness in the weld.” The term “no discernable difference” in claim 26 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “no discernable difference” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In claim 26, the recitation of “the identical microstructures show no discernable difference in the weld that would indicate a weakness in the weld” is not definite.
It is also not definite how claim 26 may further limit claim 25, since claim 25 already recites “a microstructure of the aluminum based material, the HAZ and the resolidification zone are identical”.
Claims 48, 49 and 51 include recitations of “the copper based material.” However, claim 48 recites “copper based materials” and “a first piece of copper based material in contact with a second piece of copper material” such that it is not definite what “the copper based material” refers to.
In claim 48, it is not definite what is meant by “a microstructure of the copper based material, the HAZ and the resolidification zone are identical.” There is a lack of agreement between the singular term “a microstructure” and the plural form of the verb “are” such that it is not definite what is referred to or how many microstructure(s) there are in this recitation. In addition, the quoted language does not specific what the “identical” refers to (e.g., the claim does not recite “are identical to each other”).
In claim 49, it is not definite what is meant by “the identical microstructures show no discernable difference in the weld that would indicate a weakness in the weld.” The term “no discernable difference” in claim 49 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “no discernable difference” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In claim 49, the recitation of “the identical microstructures show no discernable difference in the weld that would indicate a weakness in the weld” is not definite.
It is also not definite how claim 49 may further limit claim 48, since claim 48 already recites “a microstructure of the copper based material, the HAZ and the resolidification zone are identical”.
In claim 51, it is not definite what is meant by “the identical microstructure comprises crystal growth regions of similar size.” It is not definite how to the many microstructure(s) are referred to or how it or they can be identical and also similar in size. In other words, if the microstructures are identical, it follows that they would be identical in size, not similar, unless the microstructures are identical in a more specific way that is not claimed.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2, 3, 26, 49 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 2, 26 and 49 claim that the identical microstructures show no discernable difference in the weld that would indicate a weakness in the weld. However, claims 2, 26 and 49 depend from claims 1, 25 and 48, respectively. As best understood, claims 1, 25 and 48 already recite that the zones are identical such that the identical microstructures showing no discernable difference would be inherent in identical microstructures and not a further limitation.
Claims 3 and 51 recite that “the identical microstructure comprises crystal growth regions of similar size.” However, claims 3 and 51 depend from claims 1 and 48, respectively. As best understood, claims 1 and 48 already recite that the zones are identical such that the recitations of claims 3 and 51 that the identical microstructure comprises crystal growth regions of similar size is actually broader than the structures being identical as in claims 1 and 48.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 48-49 and 51-52 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-83 of U.S. Patent No. 10,940,562 to Finuf et al. (“Finuf”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed subject matter of the present application and that of the claims of the patent are substantially the same and the claimed subject matter of the present application would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the claimed subject matter of the claims of the patent.
Claims 1-83 of Finuf
Claims 48-49 and 51-52 of the present application
1. A method of forming a perfect weld in copper based materials, the method comprising: a. placing a work piece in a laser system; wherein the work piece comprises placing a first piece of copper based material in contact with a second piece of copper material; b. directing a blue laser beam at the work piece, whereby a weld is formed between the first piece of copper based material and the second piece of copper based material; wherein the weld comprises a HAZ and a resolidification zone; and, c. wherein a microstructure of the copper based material, the HAZ and the resolidification zone are identical.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the identical microstructures shows no discernable difference in the weld that would indicate a weakness in the weld.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the identical microstructure comprises crystal growth regions of similar size.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the weld is formed by conduction mode welding.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the first and second pieces have a thickness of from about 10 μm to about 500 μm.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the first piece comprises a plurality of layers of copper foil.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the first piece is copper metal.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the first piece is a copper alloy, having from about 10 to about 95 weight percent copper.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the laser beam is directed to the work piece as a focused spot having power density is less than 800 kW/cm.sup.2.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the laser beam is directed to the work piece as a focused spot having power density of is less than 500 kW/cm.sup.2.
11. The method of claim 1, wherein the laser beam is directed to the work piece as a focused spot having power density from about 100 kW/cm.sup.2 to about 800 kW/cm.sup.2.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the laser beam is directed to the work piece as a focused spot having power density from about 800 kW/cm.sup.2 to about 5 MW/cm.sup.2.
13. The method of claim 1, wherein the laser beam is directed to the work piece as a focused spot having power density is greater than 100 kW/cm.sup.2.
14. The method of claim 1, wherein the laser beam has a power of less than 500 W.
15. The method of claim 1, wherein the laser beam has a power of less than 275 W.
16. The method of claim 1, wherein the laser beam has a power of less than 150 W.
17. The method of claim 1, wherein the laser beam has a power in the range of 150 W to about 750 W.
18. The method of claim 1, wherein the laser beam has a power in the range of about 200 W to about 500 W.
19. The method of claim 1, wherein the laser beam is directed to the work piece as a focused spot having spot size of from about 50 μm to about 250 μm.
20. The method of claim 1, wherein the laser beam has a wavelength from about 405 nm to about 500 nm.
21. The method of claim 1, wherein the weld is formed is splatter free.
22. The method of claim 1, wherein the laser does not vaporize the work piece.
23. A method of forming a perfect weld in copper based materials, the method comprising: a. placing a work piece in a laser system; wherein the work piece comprises placing a first piece of copper based material in contact with a second piece of copper material; b. directing a blue laser beam at the work piece, whereby a weld is formed between the first piece of copper based material and the second piece of copper based material; wherein the weld comprises a HAZ and a resolidification zone; and, c. wherein a range of hardness for the HAZ is within a range of hardness for the copper based material.
24. The method of claim 23, wherein the range of hardness for the resolidification zone is within a range of hardness for the copper based material.
25. The method of claim 23, wherein a microstructure of the copper based material, the HAZ and the resolidification zone are identical.
26. The method of claim 25, wherein the identical microstructures show no discernable difference in the weld that would indicate a weakness in the weld.
27. The method of claim 26, wherein the identical microstructures shows no discernable difference in the weld that would indicate a weakness in the weld.
28. The method of claim 26, wherein the identical microstructure comprises crystal growth regions of similar size.
29. The method of claim 23, wherein the weld is formed by conduction mode welding.
30. The method of claim 23, wherein the first and second pieces have a thickness of from about 10 μm to about 500 μm.
31. The method of claim 23, wherein the first piece comprises a plurality of layers of copper foil.
32. The method of claim 23, wherein the first piece is copper metal.
33. The method of claim 23, wherein the first piece is a copper alloy, having from about 10 to about 95 weight percent copper.
34. The method of claim 23, wherein the laser beam is directed to the work piece as a focused spot having power density is less than 2000 kW/cm.sup.2.
35. The method of claim 23, wherein the laser beam is directed to the work piece as a focused spot having power density of is less than 500 kW/cm.sup.2.
36. The method of claim 23, wherein the laser beam is directed to the work piece as a focused spot having power density from about 100 kW/cm.sup.2 to about 4500 kW/cm.sup.2.
37. The method of claim 23, wherein the laser beam is directed to the work piece as a focused spot having power density is greater than 100 kW/cm.sup.2.
38. The method of claim 23, wherein the laser beam has a power of less than 500 W.
39. The method of claim 23, wherein the laser beam has a power of less than 275 W.
40. The method of claim 23, wherein the laser beam has a power of less than 150 W.
41. The method of claim 23, wherein the laser beam has a power in the range of 150 W to about 750 W.
42. The method of claim 23, wherein the laser beam has a power in the range of about 200 W to about 500 W.
43. The method of claim 23, wherein the laser beam is directed to the work piece as a focused spot having spot size of from about 50 μm to about 250 μm.
44. The method of claim 23, wherein the laser beam is directed to the work piece as a focused spot having spot size of from about 100 μm to about 500 μm.
45. The method of claim 23, wherein the laser beam has a wavelength from about 405 nm to about 500 nm.
46. The method of claim 23, wherein the weld is formed is splatter free.
47. The method of claim 23, wherein the laser does not vaporize the workpiece.
48. A method of forming a perfect weld in copper based materials, the method comprising: a. placing a work piece in a laser system; wherein the work piece comprises placing a first piece of copper based material in contact with a second piece of copper material; b. directing a blue laser beam at the work piece, whereby a weld is formed between the first piece of copper based material and the second piece of copper based material; wherein the weld comprises a HAZ and a resolidification zone; c. wherein a range of hardness for the resolidification zone is within a range of hardness for the cooper based material; and, d. wherein a microstructure of the copper based material, the HAZ and the resolidification zone are identical.
49. The method of claim 48, wherein the identical microstructures show no discernable difference in the weld that would indicate a weakness in the weld.
50. The method of claim 48, wherein the identical microstructures shows no discernable difference in the weld that would indicate a weakness in the weld.
51. The method of claim 48, wherein the identical microstructure comprises crystal growth regions of similar size.
52. The method of claim 48, wherein the weld is formed by conduction mode welding.
53. The method of claim 48, wherein the first and second pieces have a thickness of from about 10 μm to about 500 μm.
54. The method of claim 48, wherein the first piece comprises a plurality of layers of copper foil.
55. The method of claim 48, wherein the first piece is copper metal.
56. The method of claim 48, wherein the first piece is a copper alloy, having from about 10 to about 95 weight percent copper.
57. The method of claim 48, wherein the laser beam is directed to the work piece as a focused spot having power density is less than 800 kW/cm.sup.2.
58. The method of claim 48, wherein the laser beam is directed to the work piece as a focused spot having power density of is less than 500 kW/cm.sup.2.
59. The method of claim 48, wherein the laser beam is directed to the work piece as a focused spot having power density from about 100 kW/cm.sup.2 to about 3000 kW/cm.sup.2.
60. The method of claim 48, wherein the laser beam is directed to the work piece as a focused spot having power density is greater than 100 kW/cm.sup.2.
61. The method of claim 48, wherein the laser beam has a power of less than 500 W.
62. The method of claim 48, wherein the laser beam has a power of less than 275 W.
63. The method of claim 48, wherein the laser beam has a power of less than 150 W.
64. The method of claim 48, wherein the laser beam has a power in the range of 150 W to about 750 W.
65. The method of claim 48, wherein the laser beam has a power in the range of about 200 W to about 500 W.
66. The method of claim 48, wherein the laser beam is directed to the work piece as a focused spot having spot size of from about 50 μm to about 250 μm.
67. The method of claim 48, wherein the laser beam has a wavelength from about 405 nm to about 500 nm.
68. The method of claim 48, wherein the weld is formed is splatter free.
69. The method of claim 48, wherein the laser does not vaporize the work piece.
70. A method of forming a keyhole weld in copper based materials, the method comprising: a. placing a work piece in a laser system; wherein the work piece comprises placing a first piece of copper based material in contact with a second piece of copper material; and, b. directing a blue laser beam at the work piece, whereby a keyhole mode weld is formed between the first piece of copper based material and the second piece of copper based material; wherein the weld comprises a HAZ and a resolidification zone.
71. The method of claim 70, wherein the laser power is less than 1000 kW.
72. The method of claim 70, wherein the laser power is less than 500 kW.
73. The method of claim 70, wherein the laser power is less than 300 kW.
74. The method of claim 70, comprising elongating the laser beam to suppress spatter from the keyhole.
75. The method of claim 70, comprising modulating the laser power to suppress spatter from the keyhole.
76. The method of claim 70, comprising rapidly scanning the beam to suppress spatter during the keyhole mode of welding.
77. The method of claim 70, comprising rapidly decreasing the laser power after the weld is initiated, wherein the method of reducing can be automatically or manually.
78. The methods of claim 1, 23, or 70, comprising using a low atmospheric pressure to reduce entrapped gases and spatter during the welding process.
79. The methods of claim 1, 23, or 70, comprising applying a shielding gas.
80. The methods of claim 1, 23, or 70, comprising applying a shielding gas selected from the group consisting of He, Ar, N.sub.2.
81. The methods of claim 1, 23, or 70, comprising applying a shielding gas mixture selected from the group consisting of Ar—H.sub.2, N.sub.2, N.sub.2—H.sub.2.
82. The methods of claim 1, 23, or 70, comprising applying a shielding gas and adding hydrogen to the shielding gas to remove oxide layers and promote wetting of the weld.
83. The methods of claim 1, 23, or 70, comprising directing a second laser beam to the same area as the laser beam to form the weld.
48. (Currently amended) A method of forming a weld in copper based materials, the method comprising: a. placing a work piece in a laser system; wherein the work piece comprises placing a first piece of copper based material in contact with a second piece of copper based material; b. directing a blue laser beam at the work piece, whereby a weld is formed between the first piece of copper based material and the second piece of copper based material; wherein the weld comprises a HAZ and a resolidification zone; c. wherein a range of hardness for the resolidification zone is within a range of hardness for the copper based material; and, d. wherein a microstructure of the copper based material, the HAZ and the resolidification zone are identical .
49. (Original) The method of claim 48, wherein the identical microstructures show no discernable difference in the weld that would indicate a weakness in the weld.
51. (Original) The method of claim 48, wherein the identical microstructure comprises crystal growth regions of similar size.
52. (Original) The method of claim 48, wherein the weld is formed by conduction mode welding.
As can be seen above, the claimed subject matter of the present application and that of the claims of the patent are substantially the same and the claimed subject matter of the present application would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the claimed subject matter of the claims of the patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 21-26, 29, 33-34, 37, 42 and 47 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 48-49 and 51-52 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and if the double patenting above is overcome.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 02/15/2024 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/15/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The remarks begin by noting the pending, amended and canceled claims.
The remarks then address the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112. The remarks note the previous rejections and claims and discuss the case law, statues and the MPEP regarding indefiniteness rejections and state that the indefiniteness determination is based upon how one of skill in the art would understand the claims based upon the claims as a whole in view of the specifications. The remarks then state that the claim term "no discernable difference" must be read in context of the entire claim element containing that term, and how one of skill in the art would understand that claim element and that the claim element as a whole provides - "wherein the identical microstructures show no discernable difference in the weld that would indicate a weakness in the weld." The remarks continue, stating that testing and evaluation of welds for determining or decerning if there is a weakness in the weld are well known to the welding arts and the claim requires no more than that the weld shows no discernable difference in the weld that would indicate a weakness such that one of skill in the art would readily understand that the claim element requires under known testing and evaluation of welds that there is nothing that would indicate a weakness in that weld. The remarks then reproduce MPEP § 2173.02 II, emphasizing that the examiner's focus during examination of claims for compliance with the requirement for definiteness of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is whether the claim meets the threshold requirements of clarity and precision set forth in the statute, not whether more suitable language or modes of expression are available and that some latitude in the manner of expression and the aptness of terms should be permitted so long as 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is satisfied and concluding that claims 2, 26 and 49 meet the requirements of § 112.
However, as noted above, the term “no discernable difference” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite and the term “no discernable difference” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In response to the remarks that testing and evaluation of welds for determining or decerning if there is a weakness in the weld are well known to the welding arts and the claim requires no more than that the weld shows no discernable difference in the weld that would indicate a weakness such that one of skill in the art would readily understand that the claim element requires under known testing and evaluation of welds that there is nothing that would indicate a weakness in that weld, it is noted that such testing and evaluation of welds for determining or decerning if there is a weakness in the weld are well known to the welding arts are not disclosed or claimed and that it is not clear how no discernable difference would be determined in a definite and consistent manner such that the metes and bounds of the claims are not definite.
Moreover, as noted above, it is also not definite how the claims may further limit the claims which they depend from, since the claims from which they depend already claim that a microstructure of the material, the HAZ and the resolidification zone are identical.
Thus, the claims are presently rejected as set forth and explained above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S STAPLETON whose telephone number is (571)270-3492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday regular business hours.
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, HELENA KOSANOVIC can be reached on (571) 272-9059. 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.
/ERIC S STAPLETON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 April 23, 2024
Prosecution Insights