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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “difference between the at least one minimum distance to the drive center of the saw blade and the at least one maximum distance to the drive center is greater than the at least one minimum distance between the strip connection edge and the cutting edge” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Note, the Examiner does not recommend amending the drawings. See Specification Objection below.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendment filed September 8, 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Regarding claim 1, the limitation to “a difference between the at least one minimum distance to the drive center of the saw blade and the at least one maximum distance to the drive center is greater than the at least one minimum distance between the strip connection edge and the cutting edge” is new matter. The disclosure does not provide any details to the difference between the minimum distance to the drive center of the saw blade and the at least one maximum distance to the drive center is greater than the at least one minimum distance between the strip connection edge and the cutting edge. The Examiner acknowledges the explanation provided in Applicant/Remarks on September 8, 2025; however, this does not provide adequate support for the newly added limitation. The Examiner is not solely permitted to rely on the drawings to teach limitations as specific as the one set forth in claim 1. Proportions of features in a drawing are not evidence of actual proportions when drawings are not to scale (see MPEP 2125, Section II). The instant application does not impart any details to the drawings being to scale; therefore, the newly added limitation (set forth above) to claim 1 is new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 1, the phrase should recite “a strip connection edge is at least substantially curved and undulated along the arc” or similar language to more accurately reflect the details of the invention. The disclosure provides two different embodiments of the strip connection edge. Figure 2 discloses a strip connection edge that is substantially curved and Figure 4 discloses a strip connection edge that is undulated. The disclosure sets forth on Page 13, lines 9-33, the strip connection edge can have a combination of different shapes, which is reflected in the proposed amendment. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The phrase “a difference between the at least one minimum distance to the drive center of the saw blade and the at least one maximum distance to the drive center is greater than the at least one minimum distance between the strip connection edge and the cutting edge” was not disclosed in the specification in a way to reasonably convey to one skill in the art the inventor had possession at the time of filing and is new matter. The disclosure does not provide any details to the difference between the minimum distance to the drive center of the saw blade and the at least one maximum distance to the drive center is greater than the at least one minimum distance between the strip connection edge and the cutting edge. The Examiner acknowledges the explanation provided in Applicant/Remarks on September 8, 2025; however, this does not provide adequate support for the newly added limitation. The Examiner is not solely permitted to rely on the drawings to teach limitations as specific as the one set forth in claim 1. Proportions of features in a drawing are not evidence of actual proportions when drawings are not to scale (see MPEP 2125, Section II). The instant application does not impart any details to the drawings being to scale; therefore, the newly added limitations (set forth above) to claim 1 is new matter.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102013212594 to Meindorfer et al. in view of Perfect Diffusion Bonding to Elliott and in further view of Diffusion Bonding of Material to Kazakov and in further view of DE202004007929 to Brasseler or WO2016132320 to Stoddart et al. and DE102011078488 to Karlen.
In re claim 1, Meindofer teaches a saw blade, for a multifunctional power tool configured to be driven in oscillation, comprising:
at least one iron-containing carrier (14a, Pg. 5, lines 18-19) and
at least one tungsten-containing hard metal strip (38a, Pg. 3, lines 20-25, Page 6, lines 21-22) that has a strip connection edge (as shown in at least Figure 2), and at least one cutting edge (18a) opposite the strip connection, wherein
the at least one tungsten-containing hard metal strip is connected to the at least one iron-containing carrier at the strip connection edge by a joint (Pg. 2, lines 13-15), such that the at least one tungsten-containing hard metal strip is connected to the at least one iron-containing carrier in a materially bonded manner.
Britannica Encyclopedia defines welding as a technique used for joining metallic parts usually through the application of heat. Based on the definition of welding, the technique will yield a material bond between the tungsten-containing hard metal strip and the iron-containing carrier.
In re claim 9, Meindofer teaches a power tool system comprising:
at least one multifunctional power tool that can be driven in oscillation (Abstract, Meindofer); and
at least one saw blade of claim 1.
In re claim 10, Meindofer teaches a method for producing a saw blade as claimed in claim 1, comprising:
connecting the at least one tungsten-containing hard metal strip (38a, Pg. 3, lines 20-25, Page 6, lines 21-22) to the at least one iron-containing carrier (14a, Pg. 5, lines 18-19).
In re claim 14, Meindofer teaches wherein a maximum extent of the at least one tungsten-containing hard metal strip perpendicularly to the strip connection edge measures at most 2 cm (Pg. 5, lines 24-26; 0.6 cm is 0.06 cm, which satisfies the claim limitation).
In re claim 15, Meindofer teaches wherein a maximum extent of the at least one tungsten-containing hard metal strip perpendicularly to the strip connection edge measures at most 1 cm (Pg. 5, lines 24-26; 0.6 cm is 0.06 cm, which satisfies the claim limitation).
In re claim 16, Meindofer teaches wherein a maximum extent of the at least one tungsten-containing hard metal strip perpendicularly to the strip connection edge measures at most 0.5 cm (Pg. 5, lines 24-26; 0.6 cm is 0.06 cm, which satisfies the claim limitation)
In re claim 17, Meindofer teaches wherein a maximum extent of the at least one tungsten-containing hard metal strip perpendicularly to the strip connection edge measures at most 0.2 cm (Pg. 5, lines 24-26; 0.6 cm is 0.06 cm, which satisfies the claim limitation).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 10, Meindorfer teaches it is known in the art of saw blades to join materials via welding, but does not teach at least one tungsten-containing hard metal strip is connected to the at least one iron-containing carrier by a diffusion joint that has at least one diffusion zone, the metal alloy has a higher concentration of iron at a first location in the diffusion zone than at a second location in the diffusion zone, the metal allow has a higher concentration of tungsten at the second location than at the first location, the second location is closer to the at least one cutting edge than the first location.
Elliott teaches diffusion bonding is a type of welding which joins high strength and refractory metals that are either difficult or impossible to weld by other means via applying high temperature and pressure to similar or dissimilar metals mated together in a hot press causing atoms on solid metallic surfaces to intersperse and bond Pg. 2, Para 1). Diffusion bonding is advantageous for the resulting bond exhibiting the strength and temperature-resistance of the base metal.
Kazakov teaches during diffusion bonding of materials the joint will gain in reliability and strength if the weld zone is expended into the bulk of the material owing to the self-diffusion and the interdiffusion of atoms of the species being joined (Page 26). Kazakov also teaches depending on the temperature and pressure atoms move in various manners (Para 22).
It would have been obvious to one before the effective filing date of the invention to diffusion weld the at least one tungsten-containing hard metal strip and the at least one iron-containing carrier of Meindorfer as taught by Elliot and Kazakov to provide a diffusion joint that has at least one diffusion zone providing a bond exhibiting high strength, which reduces the risk of failure (or the bonded parts breaking) during use (Page 26, Kazakov, Elliott). Meindorfer teaches tungsten carbide, which the hard metal strip is made has a binder including cobalt (Pg. 3, lines 20-25). Based on the material composition of the hard material of Meindorfer, when the materials undergo a diffusion welding technique, it will lead to the diffusion zone including the metal alloy of at least one tungsten, cobalt, and iron, the metal alloy having a higher concentration of iron at a first location in the diffusion zone than a second location in the diffusion zone, and the metal alloy having a higher concentration of tungsten at the second location than the first location, in which the second location is closer to the at least one cutting edge than the first location.
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 10, Meindorfer teaches the strip connection edge is linear and does not teach the strip connection edge is at least substantially curved along a circular arc, the strip connection edge is at least substantially undulated along the circular arc.
Brassler teaches a saw blade having a strip connecting edge (Pg. 2, lines 15-19) which follows the curvature of the cutting teeth (2) as best seen in Figure 2 (and curved along a circular arc).
Stoddart teaches a strip connecting edge is at least substantially curved along a circular arc (28) and is at least undulated (Fig. 2).
Note, both Brassler and Stoddart teach a strip connection edge and carrier connection edge are at least substantially parallel to each other, in as much as the strip connection edge and carrier connection edge in Figure 4 of the pending application.
It would have been obvious to one before the effective filing date of the invention to shape the connection strip and the corresponding carrier edge of Meindorfer to have at least a substantially curved shape along a circular arc as taught by Brassler or Stoddart which are advantageous in having more strength than straight paths, which avoids breaking (Pg. 5, lines 6-10, Stoddart) and ease of manufacturing.
Kazakov further supports the position that intricate weldments are possible using a diffusion welding technique (Page 14).
Regarding claim 1, modified Meindorfer teaches a strip connection edge having a contour, which is advantageous is having more strength than a straight path. The modification of Meindorfer in view of Brassler or Stoddart teaches the strip connection edge defines at least one minimum distance to a drive center of the saw blade and at least one maximum distance to the drive center as shown in Annotated Figures 1 and 2, below on Figure 10.
PNG
media_image1.png
529
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
736
759
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Meindorfer does not teach a strip connection edge and the cutting edge define at least one minimum distance between the strip connection edge and the cutting edge, and a difference between the least one minimum distance to the drive center of the saw blade and the at least one maximum distance to the drive center is greater than the at least one minimum distance between the strip connection edge and the cutting edge.
Karlen teaches a saw blade having a strip connection edge (20a) defining at least one minimum distance between the strip connection edge and the cutting edge (18a). Karlen teaches the distance between the strip connection and the cutting edge is chosen so that at least all the tooth tips of the saw teeth in the working part come to rest (Pg. 4, lines 30-32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to choose and position the location of the strip connection edge of Meindofer as taught by Karlen relative to the cutting edge so all the saw teeth in the working part come to rest (Pg. 4, lines 30-32). One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that choosing the position (or height/size) of the strip connection edge with respect to the cutting edge has a direct impact on the distance of the strip connection edge with respect to the drive center. In light of the teachings of Karlen, it would have been obvious to position the strip connection edge at various heights (or sizes) with respect to the cutting edge. For instance, if it is the intent to reduce cost and use less material, one would have been prompted to decrease the height (or size) of Karlen (in other words, position the strip connection edge closer to the cutting edge) relative to the cutting edge and increase the maximum and minimum distances relative to the drive center. A change is size is an obvious design choice (see MPEP 2143, Section IV, Part A). This modification would have led to a difference between the least one minimum distance to the drive center of the saw blade and the at least one maximum distance to the drive center being greater than the at least one minimum distance between the strip connection edge and the cutting edge, since the height (or size) of the connection strip is based on the design of the device.
Note, the specification is devoid any criticality or details to a difference between the least one minimum distance to the drive center of the saw blade and the at least one maximum distance to the drive center being greater than the at least one minimum distance between the strip connection edge and the cutting edge. Therefore, the prior art teaches this limitation, in as much as the instant application.
In re claim 3, modified Meindofer teaches the at least one diffusion zone (Fig. 2, Meindorfer) has two end edges that are located at the end regions of the maximum extent of the strip connection edge; and wherein the end edges are of at least substantially equal lengths.
In re claim 6, modified Meindofer teaches the at least one cutting edge and the strip connection edge are on average at least substantially parallel to each other (Fig. 2, Stoddart); and the strip connection edge has a lesser maximum extent than the at least one cutting edge (Fig. 2, Stoddart).
In re claim 11, modified Meindofer teaches effecting a spatially inhomogeneous depletion of alloy particles in the at least one tungsten-containing hard metal strip to achieve the diffusion joint.
Regarding claim 12, Meindorfer teaches a method of making a blade having at least one tungsten-containing hard metal strip and at least one iron-containing carrier, but does not teach the tungsten content at the at least one diffusion zone is between 1 and 25%.
Elliott teaches diffusion bonding is a type of welding and diffusion bonding is joining high strength and refractory metals that are either difficult or impossible to weld by other means via applying high temperature and pressure to similar or dissimilar metals mated together in a hot press causing atoms on solid metallic surfaces to intersperse and bond (Pg. 2, Para 1). Diffusion bonding is advantageous for resulting in the resulting bond exhibits the strength and temperature-resistance of the base metal.
Kazakov teaches during diffusion bonding of materials the joint will gain in reliability and strength if the weld zone is expended into the bulk of the material owing to the self-diffusion and the interdiffusion of atoms of the species being joined (Page 26). Kazakov also teaches depending on the temperature and pressure atoms move in various manners (Para 22).
It would have been obvious to one before the effective filing date of the invention to form the saw of Meindorfer via diffusion bonding process by Elliott and Kazakov to provide a diffusion joint that has at least one diffusion zone providing a bond exhibiting high strength, which reduces the risk of failure (or the bonded parts breaking) during use (Page 26, Kazakov, see Elliott).
Kazakov teaches during diffusion bonding the amount of atom movement depends on temperature and pressure (Page 22, 26). Based on the known parameters of diffusion bonding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted by the teachings of Elliott and Kazakov to try various temperatures and pressures within the furnace to arrive at the desired movement of tungsten. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. MPEP 2143, Section I, Part E. The combination of modified Meindorfer would have been obvious to try for the reasons set forth below:
(1) A finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem.
The Examiner recognized there was a design need to diffuse bond the modified blade of Meindorfer in view of Elliott and Kazakov to have a specific content of tungsten to form a diffusion bond while reducing the risk of the rim of breaking/detaching from the core during cutting, which is a design need based in the art of cutting blades. Based on the teachings provided by Elliott and Kazakov, the Examiner concluded the tungsten content of Meindorfer during the diffusion process aids in maintaining the desired hardness in the diffusion zone to prevent creating a brittle blade that may breaking or detach during cutting.
(2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem.
The Examiner recognized that Elliott and Kazakov provided teachings of a using diffusion bonding between similar and non-similar metals or similar metals. Based on the teachings of Elliott and Kazakov, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that there are a finite number of identified values that could be implemented, proportionate to the blade metal composition, to form a diffusion zone to withstand the forces of the intended cutting operation. The teachings of Elliott and Kazakov that atom movement depends on furnace temperature and pressing, would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with a baseline value to being experimentation. In other words, one would have been prompted to try various furnace temperatures and pressures to move tungsten atoms to above and below the values of 1% to 25% before arriving at a desired density for the diffusion bond which allows the integrity of the blade to be retained.
(3) A finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
The Examiner determined that based on the teachings of Elliott and Kazakov, that the modified blade of Meindorfer could have a diffusion zone as set forth by Elliott and Kazakov, since the diffusion zone of 1% to 25% of tungsten would not jeopardize the intended cutting purpose of the blade. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been knowledgeable that the expectation of success, of providing the blade with a tungsten content of 1% to 25% would still permit the blade to perform its intended cutting operation.
(4) Whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The Examiner recognized that Elliott and Kazakov teach the furnace temperatures and pressures dictate atom movement to form a diffusion bond, which is in view of the facts of the case under consideration. Therefore, based on the facts of the case, one would have been prompted to try various tungsten contents above and below the values of between 1% and 25% as taught to find the diffusion zone that did not jeopardize the integrity of the blade.
Regarding claim 13, modified Meindorfer the least one tungsten-containing hard metal having tungsten, but does not teach the proportion of tungsten in the at least one diffusion zone is between 1 and 25%.
Elliott teaches diffusion bonding is a type of welding and diffusion bonding is joining high strength and refractory metals that are either difficult or impossible to weld by other means via applying high temperature and pressure to similar or dissimilar metals mated together in a hot press causing atoms on solid metallic surfaces to intersperse and bond. Diffusion bonding is advantageous for resulting in the resulting bond exhibits the strength and temperature-resistance of the base metal.
Kazakov teaches during diffusion bonding of materials the joint will gain in reliability and strength if the weld zone is expended into the bulk of the material owing to the self-diffusion and the interdiffusion of atoms of the species being joined (Page 26). Kazakov also teaches depending on the temperature and pressure atoms move in various manners (Para 22).
See rationale of claim 12 on Pages 7-9, above.
Claims 2, 4, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over to Meindorfer et al. in view of Elliott in further view of Kazakov and in further view of Brasseler or Stoddart et al. and Karlen, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of DE102017007351 to Zirden.
In re claim 2, modified Meindorfer teaches wherein the strip connection extends over a segment angle, but does not explicitly teach the angle is at least 15 degrees.
Zirden teaches the blade is in the form of a circular segment and the central angle is between the range of 20° and 270°, which is at least 15 degrees. Zirden teaches slowly rotate a blade with a large central angle to permit the pick up of saw dust (in the working area) by the holes (located in the saw) to transport the dust away from the contacting the tool blade (Para 0026).
It would have been obvious to one before the effective filing date of the invention to shape the blade of modified Meindorfor to permit the strip connection to extend over a segment angle of 20° and 270° as taught by Zirden to pick up and transport saw dust away from contacting the tool blade (Para 0026).
In re claim 4, modified to Meindorfer teaches wherein cutting edge on which cutting teeth are arranged and which extends over a circular segment having a segment angle of at least 15° (Para 0026, Zirden).
In re claim 7, modified to Meindorfer teaches wherein the at least one cutting edge (Fig. 2, Stoddart) has a continuous, curved shape that is at least substantially parallel to the at least one strip connection edge; and
wherein the at least one strip connection edge and the at least one cutting edge (Fig. 2, Stoddart) each extend over a circular segment having a segment angle of at least 15° (Para 0026, Zirden).
In re claim 8, modified to Meindorfer teaches wherein: the at least one carrier (14a, Pg. 5, lines 18-19, Meindorfer) has at least one carrier connection edge (Fig. 2, Meindorfer) by which the at least one iron-containing carrier is connected to the at least one tungsten-containing hard metal strip (38a, Pg. 3, lines 20-25, Page 6, lines 21-22); and
the at least one iron-containing carrier connection edge has a continuous, curved shape (Fig. 2, Stoddart) that extends over a circular segment having a segment angle of at least 15° (Para 0026, Zirden).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the phrase “a difference between the at least one minimum distance to the drive center of the saw blade and the at least one maximum distance to the drive center is greater than the at least one minimum distance between the strip connection edge and the cutting edge” complies with the written description requirement. Applicant further argues the Examiner has improperly relied on MPEP 2125 which is directed to relying on the drawings as prior art, since Applicant is not relying on the drawings for any exact sizes, but for relative sizes.
As stated in the 112, first paragraph rejection above, the specification is devoid any details to “a difference between the at least one minimum distance to the drive center of the saw blade and the at least one maximum distance to the drive center is greater than the at least one minimum distance between the strip connection edge and the cutting edge.” The Examiner is not permitted to rely solely on the drawings. MPEP 2125 states “When the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (The disclosure gave no indication that the drawings were drawn to scale. "[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue."). However, the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977). This application is published and is already pertinent as an applicable prior art refence. Furthermore, this particular section is relevant in supporting how the instant application does not disclose the drawings are to scale, is silent to any dimensions, and…the specification may not be relied on if completely silent on the issue. The issue in this instance being the difference between the at least one minimum distance to the drive center of the saw blade and the at least one maximum distance to the drive center is greater than the at least one minimum distance between the strip connection edge and the cutting edge.
Karlen has been relied on to teach the strip connection edge defining at least one minimum distance between the strip connection edge and the cutting edge. Karlen specifically teaches the distance between the strip connection and the cutting edge is chosen so that at least all the tooth tips of the saw teeth in the working part come to rest. Stoddart and Brassler were relied on to teach the minimum and maximum distances to the drive center. As set forth in the above rejection, one having ordinary skill in the art would have possessed the knowledge to change the size (or height) of the strip connection edge with respect to the blade for the strip to be closer or further away from the blade depending on various factors, including (but not limited to) material availability, cost, and applicant’s desired design.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER S MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-4pm.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724