DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 4/16/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 8-9 have been cancelled. Claims 1-7 and 10-20 are pending with claims 12-14 being withdrawn from further consideration.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The Applicant’s amendments have overcome; the claim objection for claim 10, the § 112(b) rejections and the § 112(f) interpretation set forth in the office action of 1/16/2026. Therefore, the claim objection for claim 10, the § 112(b) rejections and the § 112(f) interpretation are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant states that IKEDA discloses placing a transparent jig on a frame and subsequently irradiating from above through the jig; however, the radiation in IKEDA does not penetrate the material of the frame, but rather the separate, transparent cover (302), thereby reaching the adhesive (400) [0047-0048]. The Applicant argues there is no indication in IKEDA that would suggest a person skill in the art to carry out the application of electromagnetic radiation at least for heating from the side of the frame through the same, as required by amended claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. IKEDA teaches the frame is formed in a frame shape to be engaged with the periphery of the MEGA (200) with an engaging portion (301) [0040]. IKEDA teaches the protruding portion (201) of the MEGA (200) and at least part of the engagement portion (301) of the frame (300) are engaged with each other [0046]. IKEDA teaches a jig is placed on the surface with the adhesive (400) applied thereon of the MEGA (200) to which the frame (300) is placed and after the jig is placed, masking members (304, 306) are placed on the upper surface of the jig [0047]. IKEDA teaches the masking members are placed to cover a part other than the protruding portion (201) of the MEGA and the engagement portion (301) of the frame (300) [0047], indicating that the frame is being irradiated through as well and in Fig. 14, the side of the frame is not covered by the masking members, indicating the side of the frame is being irradiated [Fig. 14].
The Applicant argues that KEUERLEBER may disclose that the viscosity of the adhesive can be adjusted by means of infrared radiation and that the activation of the adhesive is carried out by means of ultraviolet radiation; however, this does not suggest that the activation and heating by electromagnetic radiation are carried out in the same single irradiation of the adhesive with electromagnetic radiation, as required by amended claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. KEUERLEBER teaches that the it is advantageously provided that the adhesive is irradiated by means of both infrared radiation and ultraviolet radiation [0012]. KEUERLEBER also teaches the infrared radiation can be omitted and ultraviolet radiation can be emitted, which would increase the viscosity of the adhesive and reduces the flowability of the adhesive [0087]. Furthermore, its known in the art that ultraviolet radiation provides heat while curing, as is evidenced by IKEDA 2 [citation provided below].
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: “surface bonded to of the PEM fuel cell” should read “surface bonded to ” in lines 2-3. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KEUERLEBER (WO 2014/015954) in view of HIROAKI et al. (WO 02/097002 A1), hereinafter HIROAKI, ARAI et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2018/0352670), hereinafter ARAI, and IKEDA et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0025688), hereinafter IKEDA, as evidenced by IKEDA et al. (JP 2016162652A, original and translation provided), hereinafter IKEDA 2.
Regarding claim 1, KEUERLEBER teaches: A method for bonding components of a PEM fuel cell with a frame and/or amongst one another (KEUERLEBER teaches bonding components of a fuel cell [0001-0002]), the method comprising: applying an adhesive curable by electromagnetic radiation in the range of visible light or UV to the frame and/or the at least one component of the components of the PEM fuel cell (KEUERLEBER teaches the adhesive is curable with the help of UV radiation [0019]. KEUERLEBER teaches the adhesive is applied to at least one component [0012].), wherein the frame and/or the components are brought into contact and the adhesive is exposed to electromagnetic radiation for activating and heating (KEUERLEBER teaches the adhesive is applied to at least one area on at least one component and is then irradiated [0012]); wherein the heating reduces the viscosity of the adhesive before it is finally cured (KEUERLEBER teaches the adhesive is irradiated at least to adjust its viscosity [0012]. KEUERLEBER teaches the viscosity of the adhesive is adjusted, preferably reduced [0021].), . . . ; and wherein in the case of bringing the frame and/or the components into contact and heating the adhesive by electromagnetic radiation, the activation and the heating is done by the electromagnetic radiation in the same single exposure of the adhesive to the electromagnetic radiation (KEUERLEBER teaches the components with the adhesive are arranged in a heatable tool for curing the adhesive [0024]. KEUERLEBER teaches ultraviolet radiation is used for curing the adhesive [0019]. KEUERLEBER also teaches the infrared radiation can be omitted and ultraviolet radiation can be emitted, which would increase the viscosity of the adhesive and reduces the flowability of the adhesive [0087]. Furthermore, it is known in the art that ultraviolet radiation produces heating during curing, as evidenced by IKEDA 2 [0040].).
KEUERLEBER is silent as to: and wherein the adhesive is a cationic epoxy which contains water; and wherein the components and/or the frame are held one on to the other by a hold-down device, wherein the irradiation with electromagnetic radiation occurs through at least one window in the hold-down device, transparent to the radiation; and the hold-down device comprises a lower part and an upper part, which are pressed against each other under slight pressure, in order to position the components to be bonded one against the other in a reliable manner, wherein at least one region adjacent to the transparent window in the hold-down device is cooled via cooling fins or a cooling fluid; wherein in the case of bonding the frame to the component, the application of electromagnetic radiation at least for heating is carried out from the side of the frame through the same.
KEUERLEBER is silent as to: and wherein the adhesive is a cationic epoxy which contains water. In the same field of endeavor, bonding, HIROAKI teaches the use of an ultraviolet activatable adhesive film comprising an epoxy resin, an ultraviolet activatable cationic polymerization catalyst, cationic polymerization inhibitor, and water [Abstract]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KEUERLEBER, by having the adhesive be a cationic epoxy with water, as suggested by HIROAKI, in order to prolong the time from activation to thermal press-bonding after the ultraviolet activatable adhesive film is activated by irradiation by ultraviolet rays [Abstract].
KEUERLEBER and HIROAKI are silent as to: wherein the components and/or the frame are held one on to the other by a hold-down device, wherein the irradiation with electromagnetic radiation occurs through at least one window in the hold-down device, transparent to the radiation; and the hold-down device comprises a lower part and an upper part, which are pressed against each other under slight pressure, in order to position the components to be bonded one against the other in a reliable manner, wherein at least one region adjacent to the transparent window in the hold-down device is cooled via cooling fins or a cooling fluid.
In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, bonding, ARAI teaches: wherein the components and/or the frame are held one on to the other by a hold- down device (ARAI teaches the components are held on to the other by a pressing jig (190, 390) [Figs. 8(a), 9(a), 15; 0057].), wherein the irradiation with electromagnetic radiation occurs through at least one window in the hold-down device, transparent to the radiation (ARAI teaches a hold-down device that includes a stand and pressing jigs [0056; 0065; 0062;]. ARAI teaches pressing jigs may be provided with a glass plate having high heat resistance and high transmittance that transmits the laser beam (10), and the laser irradiation surface (11) may be irradiated with the laser beam via the glass plate [0150].); and the hold-down device comprises a lower part and an upper part (ARAI teaches a hold-down device includes a placing stand where the components are placed [0056]. ARAI teaches the pressing jig is then placed on the components once they are placed on the placing stand [0056], indicating the lower part is the placing stand and the upper part is the pressing jig [0056]. ARAI also teaches a u-shaped jig (31) [0061] that can be interpreted as a lower part.), which are pressed against each other under slight pressure (ARAI teaches the components are pressed against each other under pressure [0057; 0062; claim 12].), in order to position the components to be bonded one against the other in a reliable manner (ARAI teaches the components are bonded in a reliable manner [Abstract; claim 12; Fig. 6; 0057].), wherein at least one region adjacent to the transparent window in the hold-down device is cooled via cooling fins or a cooling fluid (ARAI teaches cooling fins are used to cool the metal base which is an area adjacent to the hold-down device [0029; 0097; Figs. 8(a)-(b)].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KEUERLEBER and HIROAKI, by having a hold-down device with a window and cooling a region adjacent to the hold-down device, as suggested by ARAI, in order to transmit the laser beam to the laser irradiation surface via the window and the components be laser-bonded [0150-0151].
KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI and ARAI are silent as to: wherein in the case of bonding the frame to the component, the application of electromagnetic radiation at least for heating is carried out from the side of the frame through the same. In the same field of endeavor, bonding, IKEDA teaches: wherein in the case of bonding a frame to a component, the application of electromagnetic radiation at least for heating is carried out from the side of the frame through the same (IKEDA teaches bonding the frame and components of the fuel cell by ultraviolet radiation from the side of the frame [0047-0048; Figs. 5B-5C]. IKEDA teaches an adhesive is applied and the frame (300) is brought into contact with the adhesive [0046; Figs. 4A-4B]. IKEDA teaches once the adhesive, frame and components are brought into contact, the adhesive is activated by ultraviolet radiation [0046; 0048]. IKEDA teaches the components and frame are held by a jig (302) [0047; Fig. 4B]. IKEDA teaches the jig is made of an ultraviolet transmitting material (for example, quartz) [0047; Fig. 4B]. IKEDA teaches the frame is formed in a frame shape to be engaged with the periphery of the MEGA (200) with an engaging portion (301) [0040]. IKEDA teaches the protruding portion (201) of the MEGA (200) and at least part of the engagement portion (301) of the frame (300) are engaged with each other [0046]. IKEDA teaches a jig is placed on the surface with the adhesive (400) applied thereon of the MEGA (200) to which the frame (300) is placed and after the jig is placed, masking members (304, 306) are placed on the upper surface of the jig [0047]. IKEDA teaches the masking members are placed to cover a part other than the protruding portion (201) of the MEGA and the engagement portion (301) of the frame (300) [0047], indicating that the frame is being irradiated through as well and in Fig. 14, the side of the frame is not covered by the masking members, indicating the side of the frame is being irradiated [Fig. 14]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KEUERLEBER and HIROAKI, by holding down the components with a transparent jig, as suggested by IKEDA, in order to indicate and guide the working position during assembly of the framed components [0047].
Regarding claim 5, KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI and ARAI teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the components of the PEM fuel cell have a microporous surface layer at least on a surface boned to the other component and/or the frame. In the same field of endeavor, bonding, IKEDA teaches: wherein the components of the PEM fuel cell have a microporous surface layer at least on a surface boned to another component of the PEM fuel cell and/or the frame (IKEDA teaches layers (204, 206) are comprised of a porous base material (for example, carbon paper, carbon cloth or glass carbon) [0039; Figs. 5B-5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI and ARAI, for the layers to have a microporous surface, as suggested by IKEDA, in order to form creating a gas diffusion layer [0039].
Regarding claim 6, KEUERLEBER teaches: wherein the heat is produced in the components through application of electromagnetic radiation (KEUERLEBER teaches the components with the adhesive are arranged in a heatable tool for curing the adhesive [0024]. KEUERLEBER teaches ultraviolet radiation is used for curing the adhesive [0019]).
Regarding claim 7, KEUERLEBER teaches: wherein the adhesive is free of thermally crosslinking constituents (KEUERLEBER does not mention thermally crosslinking constituents within the adhesive).
Claim(s) 2-4 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KEUERLEBER (WO 2014/015954), HIROAKI et al. (WO 02/097002 A1), hereinafter HIROAKI, ARAI et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2018/0352670), hereinafter ARAI, and IKEDA et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0025688), hereinafter IKEDA, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoshino et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2015/0210905), hereinafter HOSHINO.
Regarding claim 2, KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI, ARAI and IKEDA are silent as to: wherein the cationic epoxy has a water content of 100 to 500 ppm. In the same field of endeavor, bonding components, HOSHINO teaches: wherein the cationic epoxy has a water content of 100 to 500 ppm (HOSHINO teaches the resin composition has a moisture content of 1000 ppm or less [0022], which encompasses the claimed range.). It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI, ARAI and IKEDA, by having the moisture content in the resin to be 1000 or less, as suggested by HOSHINO, in order to prevent the resin from deteriorating [0022].
Regarding claim 3, HOSHINO further teaches: wherein the cationic epoxy has a viscosity of less than 100 mPas at 75°C (HOSHINO teaches the viscosity of the adhesive is 1000 mPas or lower, and still more this viscosity may be between any two of the values including 5 mPas, 10 mPas, 25 mPas, 50 mPas, 75 mPas, 100 mPas, 250 mPas, 500 mPas, 750 mPas, 1000 mPas, 2500 mPas, 5000 mPas and 7000 mPas [0114].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI and ARAI, by having the adhesive be at a viscosity of 1000 mPas or lower, as suggested by HOSHINO, in order to be precisely coated [0114].
Regarding claim 4, HOSHINO further teaches: wherein the heating is done up to temperatures of 100 to 200°C (HOSHINO teaches that heating 200°C or lower [0120]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.ps with the claimed range.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI, ARAI and IKEDA, by heating from 200°C or lower, as suggested by HOSHINO, in order to prevent damage [0120].
Regarding claim 15, HOSHINO further teaches: wherein the cationic epoxy has a viscosity of less than 100 mPas at 75°C (HOSHINO teaches the viscosity of the adhesive is 1000 mPas or lower, and still more this viscosity may be between any two of the values including 5 mPas, 10 mPas, 25 mPas, 50 mPas, 75 mPas, 100 mPas, 250 mPas, 500 mPas, 750 mPas, 1000 mPas, 2500 mPas, 5000 mPas and 7000 mPas [0114].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI and ARAI, by having the adhesive be at a viscosity of 1000 mPas or lower, as suggested by HOSHINO, in order to be precisely coated [0114].
Regarding claim 16, HOSHINO further teaches: wherein the heating is done up to temperatures of 100 to 200°C (HOSHINO teaches the resin composition has a moisture content of 1000 ppm or less [0022], which encompasses the claimed range.). It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI, ARAI and IKEDA, by having the moisture content in the resin to be 1000 or less, as suggested by HOSHINO, in order to prevent the resin from deteriorating [0022].
Regarding claim 17, IKEDA further teaches: wherein the components of the PEM fuel cell have a microporous surface layer at least on a surface bonded to of the PEM fuel cell component and/or frame (IKEDA teaches layers (204, 206) are comprised of a porous base material (for example, carbon paper, carbon cloth or glass carbon) [0039; Figs. 5B-5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI and ARAI, for the layers to have a microporous surface, as suggested by IKEDA, in order to form creating a gas diffusion layer [0039].
Regarding claim 18, KEUERLEBER teaches: wherein the heat is produced in the components through application of electromagnetic radiation (KEUERLEBER teaches the components with the adhesive are arranged in a heatable tool for curing the adhesive [0024]. KEUERLEBER teaches ultraviolet radiation is used for curing the adhesive [0019]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KEUERLEBER (WO 2014/015954), HIROAKI et al. (WO 02/097002 A1), hereinafter HIROAKI, ARAI et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2018/0352670), hereinafter ARAI, and IKEDA et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0025688), hereinafter IKEDA, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rock et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2010/0159303), hereinafter ROCK.
Regarding claim 5, KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI, ARAI and IKEDA teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above. In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, fuel cells, ROCK teaches the components have a microporous surface layer that is bonded to other layers [0046; 0050; 0052-0053]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI, ARAI and IKEDA, for the layers to have a microporous surface, as suggested by ROCK, in order to form a polymer electrolyte membrane and form a fuel cell [Claim 11; 0012].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KEUERLEBER (WO 2014/015954), HIROAKI et al. (WO 02/097002 A1), hereinafter HIROAKI, ARAI et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2018/0352670), hereinafter ARAI, and IKEDA et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0025688), hereinafter IKEDA, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rinde et al. (U.S. 4,507,340), hereinafter RINDE.
Regarding claim 7, KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI, ARAI and IKEDA teach all of the claimed limitations, but are silent as to: wherein the adhesive is free of thermally crosslinking constituents. In the same field of endeavor, adhesives, RINDE teaches an adhesive that is substantially free of crosslinking [Col. 3,lines 22-24]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI, ARAI and IKEDA, by substituting the adhesive from RINDE, as it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KEUERLEBER (WO 2014/015954), HIROAKI et al. (WO 02/097002 A1), hereinafter HIROAKI, ARAI et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2018/0352670), hereinafter ARAI, IKEDA et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0025688), hereinafter IKEDA, and Hoshino et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2015/0210905), hereinafter HOSHINO, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Rock et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2010/0159303), hereinafter ROCK.
Regarding claim 17, KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI, ARAI, IKEDA and HOSHINO teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above. In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, fuel cells, ROCK teaches the components have a microporous surface layer that is bonded to other layers [0046; 0050; 0052-0053]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI, ARAI, IKEDA and HOSHINO, for the layers to have a microporous surface, as suggested by ROCK, in order to form a polymer electrolyte membrane and form a fuel cell [Claim 11; 0012].
Regarding claim 18, KEUERLEBER teaches: wherein the heat is produced in the components through application of electromagnetic radiation (KEUERLEBER teaches the components with the adhesive are arranged in a heatable tool for curing the adhesive [0024]. KEUERLEBER teaches ultraviolet radiation is used for curing the adhesive [0019]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KEUERLEBER (WO 2014/015954), HIROAKI et al. (WO 02/097002 A1), hereinafter HIROAKI, ARAI et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2018/0352670), hereinafter ARAI, IKEDA et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0025688), hereinafter IKEDA, and Hoshino et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2015/0210905), hereinafter HOSHINO, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Rinde et al. (U.S. 4,507,340), hereinafter RINDE.
Regarding claim 19, KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI, ARAI, IKEDA and HOSHINO teach all of the claimed limitations, but are silent as to: wherein the adhesive is free of thermally crosslinking constituents. In the same field of endeavor, adhesives, RINDE teaches an adhesive that is substantially free of crosslinking [Col. 3,lines 22-24]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify KEUERLEBER, HIROAKI, ARAI, IKEDA and HOSHINO, by substituting the adhesive from RINDE, as it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.")
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached on (571) 270-7457. 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights