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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 28, 2026 has been entered.
The after final amendment of August 3, 2026 has been entered and considered as requested by the RCE submission of August 28, 2026. With the entry of the amendment, claims 1-15 are canceled, claims 25-29 and 35-39 are withdrawn, and claims 16-24 and 30-34 are pending for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 16-24 and 30-34, in the reply filed on April 9, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 25-29 and 35-39 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 9, 2025.
Specification
The objection to the disclosure because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code is withdrawn due to the amendment of March 27, 2026 correcting this issue.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 16-24 and 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102016101019 (hereinafter ‘019) in view of Dickey et al (US 2007/0224348) and Dotter, II et al (US 6186090), and further as evidenced by Dugan et al (US 4994317).
Claim 16, 20, 21: ‘019 teaches a method of processing a flexible substrate with a flux generator while being moved through an evacuable process area of a vacuum processing system that includes a plurality of guide rollers/pulleys (note figures 1A, 1B, for example, note pages 2, 8, translation). ‘019 describes processing including transporting a first layer of the flexible substrate in a first transport direction through a free region of the evacuable process area, and where with the use of various rollers, the substrate will be transported in a second opposite different direction in a free region of the evacuable process area (open region where other material not provided) with the layers of the substrate in each positioned at a distance from each other (note figures 1A, 1B, 3A, pages 8-9, translation). A usable flux (mass flow) of the flux generator (which can be an electron beam evaporator for vapor deposition, that is a thermal evaporator unit indicated by applicant as a processing instrument 11/flux generator, note page 35 of the specification as filed, and thus understood to meet the requirements of a flux generator) is simultaneously applied to the different layers of the substrate while these layers are transported in opposite directions through the free region to coat the substrate (note Figures 1A, 1B, pages 3, 8, translation). The flexible substrate can have a woven fabric/perforated form (note pages 4, 6, translation, that would be understood to have voids, since “perforations” or openings are present through which the coating material vapor passes through), and can be considered a construction material as used to form products (note page 8, translation). There can also be repeated coating steps to the substrate with both the first and second direction coating (note figure 4, page 9, translation).
(A) As to the specific matrix/lattice shaped substrate, with line and node shaped carrier elements, in the form of weft and warp threads, that define voids therebetween (claims 1, 20, 21), for example, as noted above, ‘019 indicates that substrate can be a woven fabric which is described as perforated and so would have openings/voids in the form of the perforations (note page 6, translation). Dugan evidences how woven fabric which can be coated would be conventionally formed of line and node shaped carrier elements in the form of weft and warp threads (note figure 1, also showing what can be considered a matrix/lattice shape, column 2, lines 55-65), and further describes that the fabric would have voids between the yarns/threads (note column 3, lines 10-15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘019 to specifically provide the flexible substrate in the form of a matrix/lattice shaped substrate with line and node shaped carrier elements in the form of weft and warp threads that define voids therebetween with an expectation of providing a predictably acceptable woven fabric substrate, since ‘019 teaches using a woven fabric substrate and that it would have voids/perforations and Dugan evidences how woven fabric which can be coated would be conventionally formed of line and node shaped carrier elements in the form of weft and warp threads that would have voids therebetween and have a matrix/lattice shaped substrate.
(B) Furthermore, as to further transporting at least one second layer of the flexible substrate parallel to and at a distance between 1 mm and 10 mm from the first layer in a second transport direction opposite the first transport direction, such that the usable flux simultaneously penetrates the first and second layer of the substrate through the voids while the layers are transported in opposite directions, and the first layer and the at least one second layer being arranged one above the other in a propagation direction of the usable flux, in Figure 1A of ‘019 the layers are shown parallel in the horizontal plane at a distance from one another in different directions being simultaneously having flux applied, where it is indicated that when a fabric/perforated substrate used, the flux (coating material vapor) will pass through the perforations/voids, so penetrate through the voids (note page 6, translation). The layers are placed so that there is a propagation direction of the usable flux toward the layer from a source located below the layers (note figures 4, 5,note the arrows from source 102, etc., and page 8, translation). It is also noted that the main propagation direction of the flux can be normal to the substrate (so perpendicular to the substrate) or at a controlled angle (note page 7, translation). The distance between layers is not taught however, or that the first and second layers arranged one above the other in a propagation direction of the usable flux. ‘019 also notes that there can be multiple coatings of the substrate in the first and second directions (note figure 4, page 9, translation).
However, Dickey describes a coating system for applying coating on a flexible substrate, where the substrate can be a woven material such as cloth (note 0007, 0008, 0053, figure 1). The process includes providing the substrate in a vacuum chamber where the substrate is transported back and forth, so that first the substrate is transported in a first transport direction and then transported in a second transport direction parallel to and at a distance from the first layer in a second transport direction opposite to the first direction through a free region in the evacuable process area (where this can be repeated giving stacks of layers) (note 0007, 0008, 0010, 0021, 0031, figure 1). The stacking of the layers would be such as to give the first and second layer being arranged one above the other in a propagation direction of the coating material/vapor flow (note figure 1, 0020, 0008). It is indicted that the coating can provide filler to join and bind individual fibers of woven substrates (note 0058). The coating material is provided as precursor gases (note precursor 1 and 2) and fed into the evacuable process area to adsorb onto the surface, where by providing the layered back and forth substrates in the evacuable area, multiple layers are able to be simultaneously treated at once with the material (note figure 1, 0008, 0033). As to the distance between substrates, it is noted that for example about 100 cycles/layers can be provided in a system of only 50 cm from the input roll 74 to the take up roll 86, giving about 5 mm between layers (note figure 1, 0033), where it is noted that passageways slightly greater than a width of the substrate can be used in the system with headroom in the range of microns to millimeters (note 0021-0022), indicating the distance between substrates can be adjusted and controlled, and as well would allow for a compact system (note 0033). Dickey describes that to provide the back and forth movement of the substrate, the substrate is transported and guided around rollers and moves from roller to roller (note 64 and 66 to remove the movement direction of the substrate, note turning guides 64, 66 which can be rollers, pulleys, etc. 0030-0032, and figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘019 as evidenced by Dugan to further provide further transporting at least one second layer of the flexible substrate parallel to and at a distance between 1 mm and 10 mm from the first layer in a second transport direction opposite the first transport direction, where the first layer and the second layer are arranged one above the other in a propagation direction of the usable flux, such that the usable flux simultaneously penetrates the first and second layer of the substrate through the voids while the layers are transported in opposite directions, and where the substrate is transported from roller to roller through a free region of the evacuable process area as suggested by Dickey with an expectation of providing desirable coating because it would have been obvious to use a stacked set of back and forth layers, such that the first layer and the second layer are arranged one above the other in a propagation direction of the coating vapor/usable flux as described by Dickey as discussed above, in the evacuable process area in the free region of ‘019 with an expectation of coating both the first and second layers with penetration simultaneously since Dickey indicates how multiple layers can be coated with gaseous material in such a format simultaneously which allows for desirable addition of layer thickness and a compact system, and where the substrate can be transported from roller to roller and deflected over rollers to give the substrate transport and direction and ‘019 would note the penetration of coating material through the voids of the woven fabric substrate, such that simultaneous coating would be provided with simultaneous penetration of coating material through the voids when the flux is generated in ‘019 and simultaneous treatment provided as in Dickey, and that multiple coatings can occur, and the distance would predictably and acceptably be about 5 mm from the distance described by Dickey, or optimized to this distance from the suggestion to adjust to give the desired multiple layers and compact system.
(C) as to using the first, second, third, forth and fifth rollers as claimed, when using the positioning of the first and second layer as shown by Dickey to provide the first and second layer being arranged one above the other in a propagation direction of the usable flux, Dotter teaches a vapor deposition system that deposits materials onto a flexible running substrate moving through a chamber 20 that can be used as part of a vacuum processing system, where the chamber 20 can be evacuated/provided with a vacuum (note column 7, lines 45-68, column 9, lines 30-45, column 11, lines 30-65, figure 2). Dotter teaches using guide rolls to move the substrate (note column 9, lines 30-45), where it is shown how rolls can be used to shape the direction and angle of movement of the substrate where as shown in figure 2 (noting the additional markings provided by the Examiner),
PNG
media_image1.png
526
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first layer of the substrate can be transported from a first roller to a second roller in a first transport direction through a free region of the chamber, then then the first layer of the substrate can be deflected over a third roller and to a fourth roller to form at least one second layer of the substrate, and where the second layer of the substrate can be transported parallel to the first layer of the substrate from the fourth roller to a fifth roller in a second transport direction opposite the first transport direction through the free region (note the marked up figure 2 above, column 9, lines 30-40 and 60-65), and giving the first layer and the second layer between arranged one above the other. As shown, the use of additional guide rollers other than the third roller for looping the substrate to move in the opposite direction allows for the parallel movement section to have a distance between the two substrates that is less than the third roller size (note the marked up figure 2 above). While Dotter shows additional guide rollers other than ones that can be called the first, second, third, fourth and fifth rollers, this is not prevented by the present claims.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘019 in view of Dickey as evidenced by Dugan to further provide transporting the first and second layers of the substrate using a turning system as shown by Dotter with more than one guide roll to perform the turning/deflecting of the first layer to form the second layer moving in the opposite direction, such that there would be a first layer transported from a first roller to a second roller in a first transport direction through a free region in the evacuable process area, then the first layer deflected over a third roller and to a fourth roller to form the second layer of the substrate, and then the second layer transported parallel to the first layer from the fourth roller to a fifth roller in a transport direction opposite the first transport direction through the free region in order to provide a desirably controlled turning, and giving one layer arranged above the other, since Dickey shows turning/deflecting around one layer, and Dotter shows conventional turning/deflecting can be provided with a roller system as claimed and as described by Dotter above, which allows deflecting to the position needed, including smaller than the size of the roller, and allowing for adjustable distance as indicted by Dickey.
Claim 17, 18, 19, 32, 33: ‘019 in view of Dickey and Dotter, and as evidenced by Dugan, provide the processing a flexible substrate with a flux generator while being moved through an evacuable process area of a vacuum processing system, where the flexible substrate is a flexible matrix/lattice shaped material as discussed for claim 16 above. Furthermore, as to adjusting the process of ‘019 in view of Dickey and Dotter and as evidenced by Dugan to also provide transporting a first layer of the substrate in a first transport direction through a first free region, and subsequently in a third transport direction different from the first direction through a second free region, and deflecting and transporting a second layer of the substrate parallel to the first layer in a fourth transport direction opposite the third direction through the second free region and subsequently in a second transport direction opposite to the first transport direction through the first free region in the evacuable process area and where a usable flux simultaneously penetrates the first and second layers through the voids while these layers are transported in opposite directions through the first and/or second free regions, with the first layer and the second layer being arranged one above the other in a propagation direction of the usable flux, and for claim 18, the deflection occurs several times giving at least 4 layers, and distance between the layers of 1-10 mm through the free regions, and for claim 19, the angle between the first and third transport direction and second and fourth transport directions is greater than 0 degrees and less than 180 degrees, ‘019 also notes that there can be different directions of transport of the webs in different first and second free regions to be exposed to the flux (at angles greater than 0 and less than 180 degrees) (note figure 1B), and there can be multiple passes at these different directions (note figure 5). ‘019 indicates controlling propagation direction of the flux/coating vapor to give desired coating, including within perforations/voids, and the angle used helps control the layer thickness distribution (note page 7, translation).
Dickey indicates that when providing the stacked back and forth transport directions of the substrates could also be wound in a path that looks like a zig-zag or sine wave as long as the sequential path followed (note 0041) and a transit path of the substrate 12 through the precursor zones (where gas provided, free zones) can be curved or straight (note 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify ‘019 in view of Dickey and as evidenced by Dugan to also optimize the flow direction of the substrates through regions, including having first and second free regions where flux/coating applied such that there is an angle deflection (of greater than 0 degrees and less than 180 degrees) of the first transport path giving a first direction and angled away third direction, and then providing the return back direction of the substrate in parallel to these directions giving the fourth and second directions that are opposite as claimed and providing the flux during transport through the free regions to predictably and acceptably allow for further application of coating given the adjustability indicated by ‘019 and Dickey as discussed above and one would optimize for the specific best design for the system used, and where a usable flux simultaneously penetrates the first and second layers through the voids while these layers are transported in opposite directions through the first and/or second free regions, with the first layer and the second layer being arranged one above the other in a propagation direction of the usable flux, as discussed for claim 16. Furthermore, as to providing multiple deflections and at least 4 layers, this would be further suggested as predictably acceptable by Dickey which allows for more than 4 layers (figure 1), and the distance between would be about 5 mm, for example, as discussed for claim 16 above, given the multiple for this described by Dickey or alternatively would be optimized to the claimed distance. Claims 32, 33 would be suggested as discussed for claims 20 and 21 above.
Additionally, as to specifically providing that the transport pattern include that the first layer of the substrate transported from a first roller to a second roller through a first free region in a first transport direction, the first layer deflected over the second roller, the first layer transported to a third roller in a third transport direction different from the first transport direction, the first layer deflected over the third roller and a fourth roller to form a second layer, transporting the second layer parallel to the first layer from the fourth roller to the fifth roller in a fourth transport direction opposite the third transport direction through the second free region, deflecting the second layer of the substrate over the fifth roller, over the sixth roller, and over the seventh roller, and transporting the second layer from the seventh roller to the eight roller in a second transport direction through the first free region, as discussed above the pattern of flow of the first and second layers of the substrate would be suggested, and the use of guide rollers for moving the substrate in the desired pattern of flow would be indicated by ‘019 (note figures 1, 2, 3, 5, etc.) and Dickey (note figure 1), and further Dotter as shown above in the rejection of claim 16 would indicate how a variety of guide rollers can be used, where the figure shows how different placement of guide rollers would result in a different angle of direction of substrate, and thus it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date as claimed to modify ‘019 in view of Dickey and Dotter and further as evidenced by Dugan to specifically optimize the number and placement of the guide rolls to give the desired flow pattern noted above, and this would result in using at least the first through eighth rollers in the positioning claimed to get the flow pattern claimed.
Claim 22: The coating would be expected to provide enveloping coating as ‘019 indicates that the passage of the vapor coating material would coat the front and some back of the substrate, where this would occur while transporting the first layer in the first transport direction and the second layer in the second transport direction (note pages 6 and 8, translation, figure 1 of ‘019) and by further coating the other side, both areas would definitely be coated, and furthermore, Dickey would indicate that the feeding of gaseous coating material can also fill voids (as filler) (note 0058).
Claim 23: as to growing a layer by flux propagation on at least one side of the flux generator in the direction of the flexible substrate, this would be indicated by ‘019, figure 1, where coating is provided by the vapor/flux propagation (note figure 1A, page 2, translation). As to this starting with the weft threads, this would be predictably acceptable, as the weft threads, as evidenced by Dugan can be exposed on the surface of the substrate to be coated (figure 1). Furthermore, as to the covering of voids, this would further have been predictably acceptable as evidenced by Dugan, which shows how coating can build up to cover voids (note figure 1).
Claim 24: as to the voids being filled by using the processing instrument having the usable flux, in cooperation with a second flux generator having a secondary flux, ‘019 further indicates that additional coating can be applied from a secondary vapor source (so second flux generator having a secondary flux, as an additional electron beam evaporator, for example) (note figure 5, pages 9-10, translation). Dickey would indicate that the feeding of gaseous coating material can fill voids (as filler) (note 0058). Additionally, this would further have been predictably acceptable as evidenced by Dugan, which shows how coating can build up to cover voids (note figure 1).
Claim 30: further as to the distance of the first and second layers being 2.5 mm, given the suggestion as discussed for claim 16 that there can be adjustable distance, it would have been obvious to optimize the distance for the specific system used, giving a value of 2.5 mm. "[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 31: further as to the distance of layers being 2.5 mm, given the suggestion as discussed for claim 16 that there can be adjustable distance, it would have been obvious to optimize the distance for the specific system used, giving a value of 2.5 mm. "[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 34: The coating would be expected to provide enveloping coating as ‘019 indicates that the passage of the vapor coating material would coat the front and some back of the substrate, where this would occur while transporting the first layer in the first transport direction and the second layer in the second transport direction (note pages 6 and 8, translation, figure 1 of ‘019) and by further coating the other side, both areas would definitely be coated, and furthermore, Dickey would indicate that the feeding of gaseous coating material can also fill voids (as filler) (note 0058).
Stockhausen (US 2004/0214124) also notes the back and forth substrate movement during gas treatment (note figure 1, abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 3, 2026 have been fully considered.
Note the adjustment of the 35 USC 103 rejections due to the amendments to the claims.
As to the 35 USC 103 rejections, as to independent claim 16, (1) it is argued that ‘019/Deus does not provide the substrate features as claimed including the carrier elements that define voids therebetween and that the usable flux simultaneously penetrates the first and second layer of the substrate through the voids, where the first and second layer of the substrate are arranged one above the other in a propagation direction of the usable flux, where ‘019 provides a single tape layer, and not one layer above another, and also addresses coating material passing through the substrate as something to be avoided. (2) It is argued that Dickey fails to cure the deficiencies of ‘019, where it provides substrates guided back and forth between spaced apart precursor gas zones, and is coated by self limiting adsorption of the gases, and does not suggest that the usable flux simultaneously penetrates the first and second layers of the substrate through the voids, while the layers are arranged one above another as claimed, but rather coats by adsorption of gaseous precursors at the substrate surface. (3) It is argued that Dugan is relied on only as evidence that a woven fabric is formed with weft threads and warp threads, and Dotter does not teach the two layers arranged one above the other in a propagation direction of a usable flux. (4) Further as to independent claim 17, it is argued that the same arguments as to discussed as to claim 16 above apply.
The Examiner has reviewed these arguments, however, the rejections above are maintained. (1) As to the arguments that ‘019 does not provide the matrix or lattice shaped construction material composed of carrier elements that define voids therebetween, the Examiner is of the position that ‘019 as evidenced by Dugan would suggest this, where as discussed in the rejection above, ‘019 provides that the substrate is flexible, can be of woven fabric, and perforated (so with openings, voids), where Dugan would further evidence the providing of woven fabric with carrier elements as claimed and voids as claimed giving a matrix/lattice shaped construction. As to the suggestion to position the first and second layer arranged one above the other in a propagation direction of the flux, this is suggested by Dickey, which describes for treatment of a woven flexible substrate, the substrate can be provided in a vacuum chamber where the substrate is transported back and forth, so that first the substrate is transported in a first transport direction and then transported in a second transport direction parallel to and at a distance from the first layer in a second transport direction opposite to the first direction through a free region in the evacuable process area, where this can be repeated giving stacks of layers, where the stacking of the layers would be such as to give the first and second layer being arranged one above the other in a propagation direction of the coating material/vapor flow, where the coating material is provided as precursor gases and fed into the evacuable process area to adsorb onto the surface, where by providing the layered back and forth substrates in the evacuable area, multiple layers are able to be simultaneously treated at once with the material, such that it would be suggested to provide such a format to the process of ‘019 to provide for desirable simultaneous applications of layer thickness and use of a compact system. As to the argument that ‘019 does not provide the “simultaneously penetrates the first and second layer of the flexible substrate through the voids”, where it is argued that ‘019 would teach away from flux that passes through voids, the Examiner is of the position that ‘019 does not teach away from what is claimed, where page 6 of the translation (apparently corresponding to applicant’s cited 0079), indicates that there can be problem with the vapor passing through mesh/perforations, but still indicates that when using perforated substrate/mesh vapor will pass through (and notes using perforated/mesh substrates such as fabric, page 4, translation), and further at page 7 of the translation, ‘019 indicates that a layer thickness within perforations and/or at flank surfaces of substrates (such as fabric/mesh) can be increased (thus, the vapor/coating penetrates the substrate/void within the substrates), and also notes a substrate with a perforated structure can be coated and form a gas-permeable structure (note page 8, translation). Thus, ‘019 would not teach away from flux penetrating simultaneously first and second layers, but clearly indicates that there can be penetration to provide a layer thickness within the perforations/voids and that the vapor will pass through, and when simultaneously treating multiple layers positioned one above another as suggested from Dickey, the flux would therefore simultaneously penetrate first and second layers of the substrate through the voids, as that is the action of treatment.
(2) Furthermore, as to Dickey not suggesting providing simultaneous penetration of the first and second layers, the Examiner disagrees. At the least, vapor coating can be provided to multiple layers simultaneously (0008) and the primary reference to ‘019 indicates that vapor coating, using flux propagation, can be provided with penetration as discussed above. (3) Further as to the teachings of Dugan or Dotter, since ‘019 in view of Dickey suggests the penetration, this is not required by Dugan or Dotter. Therefore, the rejections are proper and would not use improper hindsight reconstruction. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
(4) As to claim 17, since the same arguments are provided as discussed for claim 16 above, it is the Examiner’s position that the same reasoning as discussed above applies to why the rejection of claim 17 is proper.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 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, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
