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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/20/25 has been entered. Claims 1-8, 10-11 and 18 are currently pending examination, claims 12-17 are withdrawn and claim 9 canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 10-11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji et al (US 2011/0229634; hereafter Tsuji) in view of Sappok et al (US 20100266461; hereafter Sappok).
Claim 1: Tsuji teaches a method for manufacturing a pillar-shaped honeycomb structure filter (See, for example, abstract, Figures), comprising:
a step of preparing a pillar-shaped honeycomb structure (11) comprising a plurality of first cells extending from an inlet side end surface to an outlet side end surface, each opening on the inlet side end surface and having a plugged portion on the outlet side end surface, and a plurality of second cells extending from the inlet side end surface to the outlet side end surface, each having a plugged portion on the inlet side end surface and opening on the outlet side end surface, the plurality of first cells and the plurality of second cells alternately arranged adjacent to each other with a porous partition wall interposed therebetween (See, for example, Fig 9A-B, [0003], [0011], [0062] [0129]),
and a step of attaching ceramic particles to a surface of the first cells by ejecting an aerosol (such as from 21 at 20) comprising the ceramic particles toward the inlet side end surface from a direction perpendicular to the inlet side end surface while applying a suction force (such as at 30, from 33) to the outlet side end surface to suck the ejected aerosol from the inlet side end surface (see, for example, Fig 1A-D, [0015-16] [0070-72]);
wherein the ejection of the aerosol is carried out using an aerosol generator comprising a drive gas flow path (such as via 28) for flowing a pressurized drive gas (pressurized gas via 28), a supply port (such as where line 29 meets 28 in 21) provided to intersect with a section of the drive gas flow path and capable of sucking the ceramic particles from the outer peripheral side of the drive gas flow path toward an inside of the drive gas flow path (see, for example, [0016] wherein the powder is explicitly taught to be sucked into the drive gas flow and out of ejector by utilizing negative pressure that is produced by the passing high speed air current), and a nozzle attached to a tip of the drive gas flow path and capable of ejecting the aerosol (such as outlet of ejector 21).
With respect to the limitation that the intersecting occurs at a straight section of the drive flow path wherein the straight section of the drive flow path extends from a point prior to the supply port to the nozzle, and the supply port is defined by an opening on the inner wall of the straight section of the drive gas flow pat; the aerosol generator of Tsuji appears to depict an opposite orientation, wherein a straight section of the ceramic supply / feed path extending from a point prior to the port of intersection with the gas flow to the nozzle, with the intersection port defined by an opening on the inner wall of this straight section which dictates the intersection with the drive flow path (see, for example, Fig 1a-c, such where drive gas flow line 28 intersects ceramic supply line 29, occurring at 21). Such an orientation results predictably in achieving the same result as claimed, namely the generation and ejection of the aerosol. At [0016] of Tsuji it explicitly states “ It is preferable that the ejector suck the powder by utilizing an air current, and discharge the powder together with pressurized gas so that the powder is dispersed in the gas. In this case, the ejector disperses the powder in the gas, and ejects the powder together with an air current (gas). Specifically, the ejector sucks the powder by utilizing a negative pressure produced by a high-speed air current, and discharges the powder to the gas together with the pressurized gas. The difference between Tsuji and the claimed limitation equates essentially to switching the orientation of its drive gas flow line with its ceramic supply line. Tsuji further appears to support limiting extreme changes in deviation of the air current direction with respect to the direction of ejection, thus supporting the switch in orientation of the two supplies as it would thus predictably result in complete parallel alignment of the air current direction and ejection which would then similarly limit bridging and rat holing. As such, 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 switched the orientation of these two supply lines thus achieving wherein the intersecting occurs at a straight section of the drive flow path wherein the straight section of the drive flow path extends from a point prior to the supply port to the nozzle, and the supply port is defined by an opening on the inner wall of the straight section of the drive gas flow path; since it would achieve the predictable intended result of generation and ejection of the aerosol, since it would predictably limit deviation between the direction of air current direction and ejection, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 950).
Tsuji further teaches wherein the aerosol ejected from the nozzle passes through a chamber (such as 42/342/542/742) provided between the nozzle and the inlet side end surface and is sucked (such as via suction section, 730) from the inlet side end surface (See, for example, abstract, Fig 1c-2, Fig 7C-7D, [0069-0071], [0077], [0086]);
The chamber comprises an opposing surface to the inlet side end surface (see, for example, Fig 7C-7D, Fig 8, such as upper interfacing surface with nozzle ring feature 876).
The opposing surface comprises an insertion port for the nozzle (such as central opening of nozzle ring 876) and one or more opening (plurality of nozzle holes 878) that are different from the insertion port for taking in ambient gas (air) into the chamber (see, for example, Fig 7C-7D, Fig 8, [0118-0122]).
Tsuji teaches the method of claim 1 above, but does not teach an end point of the step of attaching the ceramic particles to the surface of the first cells is determined based on a value of a differential pressure gauge installed for measuring a pressure loss between the inlet side end surface and the outlet side end surface of the pillar-shaped honeycomb structure. Sappok teaches a method of manufacturing and coating of a honeycomb structure filter (see, for example, abstract, Fig 5). Sappok further teaches that during coating, measurement of filter pressure drop between the ends of the filter can be used to determine when the desired coating level has been achieved (See, for example,[0022]). 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 a differential pressure gauge for measuring a pressure loss between the inlet side end surface and the outlet side end surface of the pillar-shaped honeycomb structure during coating as it would predictably provide a determination as to when the desired amount of coating material is achieved, thus predictably saving time and materials. Additionally / alternatively, 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 2: Tsuji further teaches wherein the particular particle size of aerosol for deposition is specifically selected in response to the average pore size of the partition wall, and is preferably 1 to 15 micron and should be provided in a sharp particle size distribution (see, for example, [0130-131]). Although such a range is not explicitly wherein the ceramic particles in the aerosol have a median diameter of 1.0 to 6.0 micron in a volume based cumulative particle diameter distribution measure by a laser diffraction /scattering method 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 sizing 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).
Claim 4: Tsuji further teaches wherein the chamber comprises no openings for taking in ambient gas other than those on the opposing surface (See, for example, Fig 7C-7D, [0018-0119]).
Claim 5: Tsuji teaches the method of claim 4 (above), wherein the opposing surface of the chamber comprises a concentric closure portion centered on the insertion port (876), and the one or more openings (878) are provided on an outer peripheral side of the closure portion (see, for example, Fig 7C-7D, Fig 8, [0118-0119]).
Claim 10: Tsuji further teaches an exemplary embodiment wherein in the step of attaching the ceramic particles to the surface of the first cells, an average flow velocity of the aerosol flowing inside the pillar-shaped honeycomb structure is ~5.09 m/s (see, for example, [0136] calculated by dividing volumetric flow is 0.4 m3/min by the cross-sectional area of the 36.2x36.2 mm honeycomb).
Claim 10 (Alternatively): Tsuji has taught wherein the flow rate is result effective influencing the deposition, and further has taught is as flow rate of 0.1-400 m3 / min ([0037-0039], [0046], [0070], [0132], [0136-0138]) Tsuji further has taught the diameter of a columnar honeycomb as 144mm, resulting in a calculated average flow velocity ranging from 0.1 to 409 m/s. Although such a range is not explicitly 5 m/s or more, 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 velocity 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).
Claim 11: Tsuji further teaches wherein a main component of the ceramic particles is silicon carbide, alumina, silica, or cordierite (see, for example, [0130]).
Claim 18: Tsuji further teaches an exemplary embodiment wherein in the step of attaching the ceramic particles to the surface of the first cells, an average flow velocity of the aerosol flowing inside the pillar-shaped honeycomb structure is ~2.67 m/s (see, for example, [0136] calculated by dividing volumetric flow of 0.4 m3/min (0.3 from gas mixed in the introduction section and 0.1 from gas ejected from powder transfer section) by the cross-sectional area of the 50x50 mm internal dimension of the guide member chamber).
Claim 18 (Alternatively): Tsuji has taught wherein the flow rate is result effective influencing the deposition, and further has taught wherein the volumetric flow rate in the chamber (B+C) is equivalent to the suction flow rate (A), which is preferably as flow rate of 0.1-400 m3 / min ([0025], [0037-0039], [0046], [0070], [0132], [0136-0138]). Tsuji further has taught the diameter of a columnar honeycomb as 144mm, and the inner diameter of the guide member is 240 mm resulting in a calculated average flow velocity of the aerosol flowing in the chamber ranging from 0.0368 to 147.4 m/s. Although such a range is not explicitly 0.5-3 m/s, 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 velocity 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).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji in view of Sappok as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Fekety et al (US 2010/0126133; hereafter Fekety).
Claims 2-3: Tsuji in view of Sappok teaches the method of claims 1-2 (see, above), and Tsuji further teaches wherein the powder may be subjected to size classification to obtain particles of a sharp particle size distribution (see, for example, [0131]), but it does not explicitly teach the claimed median diameter and particle size distribution. Fekety teaches a method of providing particulate coatings onto honeycomb filters (See, for example, abstract). Fekety further teaches wherein narrow particle size distribution aerosol ceramic powders can facilitate control over narrow size distribution of resulting coating porosity and ultimately savings by allowing for thinner coatings (see, for example, [0050], [0068] [0075-0078]). Fekety further teaches predictably application of an AA-3 alumina possessing narrow particle size distribution and a median particle size of 2.7-3.6 micron to provide for a narrower pore size distribution (See, for example, [0084-86]). 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 a narrow particle size distribution median particle size 2.7-3.6 micron powder as such conditions would predictably provide for a honeycomb filter with a more controllable and narrower coating porosity size distribution allowing the thinning of the coating without sacrificing performance. If not already inherent that the “sharp” / narrow particle distribution median particle size 2.7-3.6 micron powder would possess 20% by volume or less particles of 10 micron or more, 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 such a range since the narrowness of the median particle size has been explicitly taught to influence the resulting control over the coating porosity size distribution and allowing for less coating thickness, therefor optimizing and minimizing such outlier sizes would be beneficial and since “[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).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji in view of Sappok and Kimura et al (JP 2018059203; citations directed to machine translation provided herein; hereafter Kimura).
Claims 1 and 6: Tsuji teaches a method for manufacturing a pillar-shaped honeycomb structure filter (See, for example, abstract, Figures), comprising:
a step of preparing a pillar-shaped honeycomb structure (11) comprising a plurality of first cells extending from an inlet side end surface to an outlet side end surface, each opening on the inlet side end surface and having a plugged portion on the outlet side end surface, and a plurality of second cells extending from the inlet side end surface to the outlet side end surface, each having a plugged portion on the inlet side end surface and opening on the outlet side end surface, the plurality of first cells and the plurality of second cells alternately arranged adjacent to each other with a porous partition wall interposed therebetween (See, for example, Fig 9A-B, [0003], [0011], [0062] [0129]),
and a step of attaching ceramic particles to a surface of the first cells by ejecting an aerosol (such as from 21 at 20) comprising the ceramic particles toward the inlet side end surface from a direction perpendicular to the inlet side end surface while applying a suction force (such as at 30, from 33) to the outlet side end surface to suck the ejected aerosol from the inlet side end surface (see, for example, Fig 1A-D, [0015-16] [0070-72]);
wherein the ejection of the aerosol is carried out using an aerosol generator comprising a drive gas flow path (such as via 28) for flowing a pressurized drive gas (pressurized gas via 28), a supply port (such as where line 29 meets 28 in 21) provided to intersect with a section of the drive gas flow path and capable of sucking the ceramic particles from the outer peripheral side of the drive gas flow path toward an inside of the drive gas flow path (see, for example, [0016] wherein the powder is explicitly taught to be sucked into the drive gas flow and out of ejector by utilizing negative pressure that is produced by the passing high speed air current), and a nozzle attached to a tip of the drive gas flow path and capable of ejecting the aerosol (such as outlet of ejector 21).
Tsuji further teaches wherein the aerosol ejected from the nozzle passes through a chamber (such as 42/342/542/742) provided between the nozzle and the inlet side end surface and is sucked (such as via suction section, 730) from the inlet side end surface (See, for example, abstract, Fig 1c-2, Fig 7C-7D, [0069-0071], [0077], [0086]);
The chamber comprises an opposing surface to the inlet side end surface (see, for example, Fig 7C-7D, Fig 8, such as upper interfacing surface with nozzle ring feature 876).
The opposing surface comprises an insertion port for the nozzle (such as central opening of nozzle ring 876) and one or more opening (plurality of nozzle holes 878) that are different from the insertion port for taking in ambient gas (air) into the chamber (see, for example, Fig 7C-7D, Fig 8, [0118-0122]).
Tsuji further teaches the aerosol generator comprises a powder feeding device 24 is one of a variety of feeding mechanisms, such as comprising a cylinder and screw (screw feeding) or a belt feeder (see, for example, [0068]), but it does not explicitly teach it particularly comprises cylinder for accommodating the ceramic particles, a piston or a screw for sending out the ceramic particles accommodated in the cylinder from a cylinder outlet, and a loosening chamber comprising an inlet communicating with the cylinder outlet, a rotating body for loosening the ceramic particles sent out from the cylinder outlet, and an outlet communicating with the supply port. Kimura teaches a method of aerosol film deposition and aerosol generator construction (See, for example, Figs, [0001], [0017]). Kimura further teaches insertion of a loosening chamber (18B) comprising an inlet communicating with the cylinder outlet of a piston feeding mechanism, a rotating body (brush 21) for loosening the ceramic particles sent out from the cylinder outlet, and an outlet communicating with the supply port which intersects with and is defined by an opening on the inner wall of the straight section of the drive gas flow path (see, for example, Fig 2, Fig 4). Kimura specifically teaches that such an incorporation can provide charge, contribute to film formation, and break down aggregated particles and reduce subsequent aggregation allowing the process to be less susceptible to moisture, and reducing effort and cost of powder management and gas (See, for example, [0026], [0034], [0066]). 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 a cylinder for accommodating the ceramic particles, a piston or a screw for sending out the ceramic particles accommodated in the cylinder from a cylinder outlet, and a loosening chamber comprising an inlet communicating with the cylinder outlet, a rotating body for loosening the ceramic particles sent out from the cylinder outlet, and an outlet communicating with the supply port and intersecting with a straight section of the drive gas flow path wherein the supply port is defined by an opening on the inner wall of the straight section of the drive gas flow path as such an aerosol generator structure would predictably provide charge, contribute to film formation, and break down aggregated particles and reduce subsequent aggregation allowing the process to be less susceptible to moisture, and reducing effort and cost of powder management and gas.
By combination of Tsuji in view of Kimura, Tsuji has taught a straight section which extends from the intersection of the drive gas with the supply feed to the nozzle (See, for example, Fig 1b); and Kimura has taught wherein the intersection point of the supply port into the drive gas flow path occurs at a straight section of the drive flow path which extends from a point prior to the supply port, and the supply port is defined by an opening on the inner wall of the straight section of the drive gas flow path (See, for example, Figs, [0026], [0034], [0066]). Thus the combination teaches wherein the intersecting occurs at a straight section of the drive flow path wherein the straight section of the drive flow path extends from a point prior to the supply port to the nozzle, and the supply port is defined by an opening on the inner wall of the straight section of the drive gas flow path;
Tsuji in view of Kimura teaches the method of claim 1 above, but does not teach an end point of the step of attaching the ceramic particles to the surface of the first cells is determined based on a value of a differential pressure gauge installed for measuring a pressure loss between the inlet side end surface and the outlet side end surface of the pillar-shaped honeycomb structure. Sappok teaches a method of manufacturing and coating of a honeycomb structure filter (see, for example, abstract, Fig 5). Sappok further teaches that during coating, measurement of filter pressure drop between the ends of the filter can be used to determine when the desired coating level has been achieved (See, for example, [0022]). 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 a differential pressure gauge for measuring a pressure loss between the inlet side end surface and the outlet side end surface of the pillar-shaped honeycomb structure during coating as it would predictably provide a determination as to when the desired amount of coating material is achieved, thus predictably saving time and materials. Additionally / alternatively, 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 7: Tsuji in view of Kimura and Sappok teach the method of claims 1 and 6 above, wherein the aerosol generator further comprises: a flow path for sucking and transporting the ceramic particles, which comprises an outlet communicating with the supply port (such as interface where gas flow path meets particles), and an accommodation unit for accommodating the ceramic particles and supplying the ceramic particles to the flow path (such as area just before interface and / or 18B of Kimura) for sucking and transporting (see, for example, Fig 1A-D, [0015-16] [0070-72] of Tsuji and Fig 2 and 4 of Kimura); wherein the drive gas flow path comprises on the way thereof a venturi portion where the flow path is narrowed, and the supply port is provided on the downstream side of the narrowest flow path location in the venturi portion (See, for example, Kimura [0026] wherein the imposition of a venturi tube narrowing just before the supply port is taught to desirably avoid agglomeration; 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 a venturi portion where the flow path is narrowed, and the supply port is provided on the downstream side of the narrowest flow path location in the venturi portion since it provides predictably gas flow to the aerosol generator and desirably reduces agglomeration).
Claim 8: refer to the rejection of claim 6 above to the incorporation and positioning of the loosening chamber with respect to feeder and the sucking and transporting outlet and further wherein Tsuji has explicitly taught the feeding mechanism as a belt feeder (see, for example, [0068]).
Claims 2, 4, 5, 10-11, and 18: refer to the rejections of claims 1 and 6 over Tsuji in view of Kimura and Sappok as well as the rejections to claims 2, 4, 5, 10-11, and 18 over Tsuji in view of Sappok above.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji In view of Kimura and Sappok as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Fekety.
Claims 2-3: refer the rejection of claims 1 and 6 over Tsuji in view of Kimura and Sappok above and the rejections of claims 2-3 over Tsuji in view of Sappok and Fekety above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pg 10-11 of 11/20/25 remarks) that as Tsuji has disclosed that uniform collection layers were formed ([0140]), that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had no reason to consider attempting to reduce variation of the coating layer disclosed. In each of the argued examples at [0138-0140] the ultimate basis for determination of degree of coating is provided for in grams, suggesting that the samples were weighed. Further for the process of Tsuji alone (without the implementation of Sappok) the examiner agrees that Tsuji teaches ([0138-0140]) a variance of coating weight on the order of +/- 10%, thus the method of Tsuji alone leaves room for optimization in lowering sample to sample coating weight difference. Sappok has further explicitly demonstrated that pressure drop is an equivalent means to weighing to determine when the desired coating level is achieved (See, for example, [0022]), so beyond uniformity, it further assists in determination of end point (therefore avoiding situations of too much or too little material is applied. In light of this, based on the teaching of Sappok, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that implementing a means for identifying when a desired coating level is actually achieved could aid in both reducing variance and continuing coating processing in situations wherein the desired coating level is not reached (thus avoiding waste from samples not coated sufficiently) and ceasing the coating processing in situations where it has been reached (thus avoiding wasting excess coating material, and possibly avoiding waste from samples coated with too much coating material). Further additionally / alternatively 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). As such the examiner maintains reliance up the combination of Tsuji and Sappok is apt as too are the rejections comprising this combination.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show the amended features of claim 1 of the invention, it is noted that in addition to the embodiment emphasized by Applicant at [0077] of Tsuji, Tsuji has taught a number of alternative embodiments (See figures 1-10), including embodiments wherein the chamber comprises an opposing surface, such as the face of nozzle ring 876 facing the inlet side end surface (see, for example, Fig 7c-d, and Fig 8, [0018-0119]). Which further meets the additional added limitations requiring wherein the opposing surface comprises an insertion port (central opening of nozzle ring 876) for the nozzle and one or more openings (878) that are different from the insertion port for taking in ambient gas into the chamber. As such the examiner maintains reliance upon Tsuji for such features is apt.
Conclusion
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