DETAILED ACTION
Status of Previous Rejections
No amendments were entered. Claims 1, 5-6,10,13-14 and 16-23 are pending, have been previously presented, and are presented for examination on the merits. Claims 2-4, 7-9, 11-12, and 15 have been cancelled. The 112(a) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 11/21/2025 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments (remarks, page 2) explaining the specification recites “remelting is being carried out by the trailing laser beam despite the scan parameters providing too low an energy density to melt the material without the heating carried out [by] the leading laser beam (page 32, lines 27-30)”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 6, 10, 13-14 and 16-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0250772 A1 of Symeonidis (as cited in prior Office action).
Regarding claim 1, Symeonidis teaches three-dimensional (3D) printing methods, apparatuses, systems and/or software to form one or more three-dimensional objects (Abstract).
Symeonidis teaches powder bed 3D printing ([0154], which includes powder bed fusion and 3D printing is another term used for “additive manufacturing”). Symeonidis teaches 3D printing refers to sequential addition of material layer or joining of material layers (or parts of material layers) to form a 3D structure, in a controlled manner ([0153]). Symeonidis therefore reads on the limitation a powder bed fusion additive manufacturing method in which an object is built in a layer-by-layer manner of claim 1.
Symeonidis teaches a method for generating a 3D object comprising elemental metal or metal alloys ([0008], [0015], reads on the claimed metal material). Symeonidis teaches printing a three-dimensional object comprises: (a) using a first energy beam to transform one or more layers of pre-transformed material to print one or more layers of transformed material; and (b) using a second energy beam to reduce a porosity of the one or more layers of transformed material, wherein reducing the porosity comprises transforming at least a portion of each of the one or more layers of transformed material ([0010], first energy beam reads on leading energy beam and second energy beam reads on trailing energy beam). Symeonidis teaches, in some embodiments, transforming comprises melting ([0009], the second energy beam of Symeonidis transforming reads on the claimed re-melting by progressing a trailing energy beam since “transform” comprises melting). Symeonidis teaches the transformed (e.g., molten) material may harden to form at least a portion of the (hard) 3D object and the hardening (e.g., solidification) can be actively induced (e.g., by cooling) or can occur without intervention ([0156], reads on the claimed allowing the metal material to solidify to define a fused region of the layer). Symeonidis teaches at least a portion of a transformed material (e.g., that forms a hardened material) is being re-melted during the fabrication of the 3D object ([0152], reads on the claimed re-melting the fused region). Symeonidis teaches re-melting after the melt pool has been at least partially hardened (e.g., solidified) ([0152], further reads on the claimed re-melting the fused region).
Regarding the irradiation path of claim 1, Symeonidis teaches, in some embodiments, hatching comprises continuous irradiation of a target surface during movement of the first and/or second energy beam along a path ([0035], continuous irradiation along a path reads on the claimed progressing an energy beam along an irradiation path and since it is done by a first and/or second energy, the hatching of Symeonidis reads on the claimed progressing a leading and trailing energy beam along an irradiation path; hatching is defined as the energy beam continuously moving along a path to form a hatch in paragraph [0165]). Symeonidis further teaches the energy beam and transforming energy beam(s) may travel along a path ([0171], [0311], path reads on the claimed irradiation path).
Symeonidis therefore reads on the limitation the method comprising: for each layer of a plurality of successively fused layers, melting metal material of the layer by irradiating the metal material a first time by progressing a leading energy beam along an irradiation path using a first set of irradiation parameters, allowing the metal material to solidify to define a fused region of the layer, and re-melting the fused region by irradiating the metal material a subsequent time by progressing a trailing energy beam along the irradiation path using a second set of irradiation parameters of claim 1.
Symeonidis teaches in some embodiments, at least one characteristic of the first energy beam is different from a respective one of the second energy beam and the at least one characteristic of the first energy beam comprises a power density, a scanning speed, a dwell time, an intermission time, or a cross-section ([0011], the first set of irradiation parameters for the first energy beam can have at least a powder density, scanning speed, dwell time, intermission time, or cross-section different to those of the second energy beam).
Symeonidis therefore reads on the limitation wherein the first set of irradiation parameters comprises at least one different irradiation parameter to the second set of irradiation parameters of claim 1.
Symeonidis teaches the speed of the energy beam along the path remains the same ([0166], reads on the claimed same speed). Symeonidis further teaches the energy beam may travel at a speed comprising a constant speed ([0271], reads on the claimed same speed).
Symeonidis teaches during the printing, the first energy beam and/or the second energy beam has a constant or varied delay time ([0015], constant delay time reads on the claimed fixed time apart since the delay time applies to the first and/or second energy beam). Symeonidis teaches the first layer of pre-transformed material forms a material bed, wherein during the delay time the first energy beam and/or the second energy beam is translated from a first position of an exposed surface of the material bed to a second position of the exposed surface of the material bed ([0015]).
Symeonidis therefore reads on the limitation the leading energy beam and the trailing energy beam are progressed along the irradiation path at the same speed a fixed time apart of claim 1.
Symeonidis teaches delay times may be at least about 1 (micro) μsec, and at most about 50 (milli) msec ([0252]). In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2144.05 I.
Symeonidis therefore reads on the limitation a separation between the first time and the subsequent time is greater than 250 microseconds of claim 1.
Symeonidis therefore reads on all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Symeonidis teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Symeonidis teaches, in some embodiments, the power density of the second energy beam is smaller than the power density of the first energy beam ([0011], a lower power density results in reheating rather than remelting). Symeonidis teaches printing a three-dimensional object comprises one or more controllers that are individually or collectively programmed to: (a) direct a first energy beam to transform one or more layers of pre-transformed material to one or more layers of transformed material; and (b) direct a second energy beam that reduces a porosity of the one or more layers of transformed material, wherein reducing the porosity comprises transforming at least a portion of the one or more layers of transformed material ([0012], directing an energy beam to one or more layers corresponds to reheating a region more than one subsequent time).
Symeonidis therefore reads on the limitation comprising reheating the fused region more than one subsequent time of claim 6.
Regarding claim 10, Symeonidis teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Symeonidis teaches the one or more controllers is programmed to direct the first and second energy beams to have different power densities ([0064], different power densities result in different powers and therefore reads on the claimed different power).
Symeonidis therefore reads on the limitation wherein the leading energy beam has a different power to the trailing energy beam of claim 10.
Regarding claim 13, Symeonidis teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Symeonidis teaches forming a second melt pool adjacent to the first melt pool where the second melt pool is identical or substantially identical to the first melt pool, or the second melt pool is different than the first melt pool by at least one fundamental length scale ([0052], the second melt pool can be deeper than the first melt pool).
Symeonidis therefore reads on the limitation melting of the fused region the subsequent time such that melt pool(s) formed extend deeper than melt pool(s) formed when melting the metal material of the layer the first time to form the fused region of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Symeonidis teaches three-dimensional (3D) printing methods, apparatuses, systems and/or software to form one or more three-dimensional objects (Abstract).
Symeonidis teaches powder bed 3D printing ([0154], which includes powder bed fusion and 3D printing is another term used for “additive manufacturing”). Symeonidis teaches 3D printing refers to sequential addition of material layer or joining of material layers (or parts of material layers) to form a 3D structure, in a controlled manner ([0153]). Symeonidis therefore reads on the limitation a powder bed fusion additive manufacturing method in which an object is built in a layer-by-layer manner of claim 14.
Symeonidis teaches a method for generating a 3D object comprising elemental metal or metal alloys ([0008], [0015], reads on the claimed metal material). Symeonidis teaches printing a three-dimensional object comprises: (a) using a first energy beam to transform one or more layers of pre-transformed material to print one or more layers of transformed material; and (b) using a second energy beam to reduce a porosity of the one or more layers of transformed material, wherein reducing the porosity comprises transforming at least a portion of each of the one or more layers of transformed material ([0010], first energy beam reads on leading energy beam and second energy beam reads on trailing energy beam). Symeonidis teaches, in some embodiments, transforming comprises melting ([0009], the second energy beam of Symeonidis transforming reads on the claimed re-melting by progressing a trailing energy beam since “transform” comprises melting). Symeonidis teaches the transformed (e.g., molten) material may harden to form at least a portion of the (hard) 3D object and the hardening (e.g., solidification) can be actively induced (e.g., by cooling) or can occur without intervention ([0156], reads on the claimed allowing the metal material to solidify). Symeonidis teaches re-melting after the melt pool has been at least partially hardened (e.g., solidified) ([0152], reads on the claimed melting the solidified material).
Symeonidis teaches, in some embodiments, hatching comprises continuous irradiation of a target surface during movement of the first and/or second energy beam along a path ([0035], continuous irradiation along a path reads on the claimed progressing an energy beam along an irradiation path and since it is done by a first and/or second energy, the hatching of Symeonidis reads on the claimed progressing a leading and trailing energy beam along an irradiation path; hatching is defined as the energy beam continuously moving along a path to form a hatch in paragraph [0165]). Symeonidis further teaches the energy beam and transforming energy beam(s) may travel along a path ([0171], [0311], path reads on the claimed irradiation path).
Symeonidis therefore reads on the limitation the method comprising: for each layer of a plurality of successively fused layers, melting metal material of the layer using a leading energy beam by progressing the energy beam over the metal material along an irradiation path, allowing the metal material to solidify, and melting the solidified metal material by progressing a trailing energy beam along the irradiation path, wherein the leading energy beam and the trailing energy beam are progressed along the irradiation path of claim 14.
Symeonidis teaches the speed of the energy beam along the path remains the same ([0166], reads on the claimed same speed). Symeonidis further teaches the energy beam may travel at a speed comprising a constant speed ([0271]).
Symeonidis teaches during the printing, the first energy beam and/or the second energy beam has a constant or varied delay time ([0015], constant delay time reads on the claimed fixed time apart). Symeonidis teaches the first layer of pre-transformed material forms a material bed, wherein during the delay time the first energy beam and/or the second energy beam is translated from a first position of an exposed surface of the material bed to a second position of the exposed surface of the material bed ([0015]).
Symeonidis teaches delay times may be at least about 1 (micro) μsec, and at most about 50 (milli) msec ([0252]). In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2144.05 I.
Symeonidis therefore reads on the limitation wherein the leading energy beam and the trailing energy beam are progressed along the irradiation path at the same speed a fixed time apart such that a separation between irradiating a region with the leading energy beam to melt metal material and irradiating the region with the trailing energy beam to remelt the metal material after solidification is greater than 250 microseconds of claim 14.
Symeonidis therefore reads on all limitations of claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, Symeonidis teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Symeonidis teaches during the printing, the first energy beam and/or the second energy beam has a constant or varied delay time ([0015]). Symeonidis teaches the first layer of pre-transformed material forms a material bed, wherein during the delay time the first energy beam and/or the second energy beam is translated from a first position of an exposed surface of the material bed to a second position of the exposed surface of the material bed ([0015]). Symeonidis teaches delay times may be at least about 1 (micro) μsec, and at most about 50 (milli) msec ([0252]). In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2144.05 I.
Symeonidis therefore reads on the limitation wherein a separation between the first time and the subsequent time is greater than 500 microseconds of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, Symeonidis teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Symeonidis teaches using metal alloys comprising an iron based alloy, nickel based alloy, cobalt based allow, chrome based alloy, cobalt chrome based alloy, titanium based alloy, magnesium based alloy, copper based alloy, or any combination thereof ([0192], emphasis added, nickel-based, titanium-based, and its combinations read on the claimed nickel-titanium alloy.
Symeonidis teaches in some instances nickel alloy comprises Alnico and Alumel ([0196], Alnico comprises aluminum, nickel, and cobalt; Alumel comprises nickel, aluminum, and manganese and therefore these alloys read on the claimed nickel-aluminum alloys).
Symeonidis therefore reads on the limitation wherein the metal material is a nickel-titanium, nickel-aluminium or nickel-titanium-aluminium alloy of claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, Symeonidis teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Symeonidis teaches using superalloys and the alloy may comprise Hastelloy, Inconel, Waspaloy, Rene alloy (e.g., Rene-80, Rene-77, Rene-220, or Rene-41), Haynes alloy, Incoloy, MP98T, TMS alloy, MTEK (e.g., MTEK grade MAR-M-247, MAR-M-509, MAR-M-R41, or MAR-M-X-45), or CMSX (e.g., CMSX-3, or CMSX-4) ([0193], emphasis added). Symeonidis further teaches the alloy can be a single crystal alloy ([0193]).
Symeonidis therefore reads on the limitation wherein the metal material is a material selected from: Hastelloy, Inconel, Waspaloy, Rene alloys, Incoloy, CM247 and a CMSX single crystal alloy of claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, Symeonidis teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Symeonidis teaches using a tool steel ([0194]).
Symeonidis therefore reads on the limitation wherein the metal material is a tool steel of claim 19.
Regarding claim 21, Symeonidis teaches the method of claim 10 as described above.
Symeonidis teaches in some embodiments, the power density of the second energy beam is smaller than the power density of the first energy beam ([0011]). Symeonidis teaches the type-1 energy beam has a power density above about 80000 Watts per millimeter square and the type-2 energy beam has a power density of at most about 8000 Watts per millimeter square ([0052]). Since Symeonidis teaches the power density of the second energy beam is smaller than the power density of the first energy beam and the power densities for two energy beams differ by at least an order of magnitude, there are power density values that read on the claimed trailing energy beam has a power that is less than half of the power of the leading energy beam. For example, a trailing energy beam with a power density of 8000 Watts per millimeter square and a leading energy beam with a power density of 80,000 Watts per millimeter square has a trailing energy beam with 1/10 the power of the leading energy beam and therefore reads on the claimed less than half of the power of the leading energy beam.
In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2144.05 I.
Symeonidis therefore reads on the limitation wherein the trailing energy beam has a power that is less than half of the power of the leading energy beam of claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, Symeonidis teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Symeonidis teaches the first energy beam has different energy density than the second energy beam ([0068]). Symeonidis teaches the energy beam has an energy density from about 50 J/cm2 to about 5000 J/cm2 ([0313]). Since the first and second energy beam can have an energy density range of about 50 J/cm2 to about 5000 J/cm2, there are a limited number of options for the possible energy densities for the first and second energy beams, many of which reads on the claimed energy density of the trailing energy beam is less than an energy density of the leading energy. For example, an energy density of 50 J/cm2 for the trailing energy beam and an energy density of 5000 J/cm2 reads on the energy density limitation of claim 22.
Symeonidis therefore reads on the limitation wherein an energy density of the trailing energy beam is less than an energy density of the leading energy beam of claim 22.
Regarding claim 23, Symeonidis teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Symeonidis teaches a spot size of the hatching energy beam is smaller than a spot size of the tiling energy beam ([0024], hatching energy beam reads on the claimed leading energy beam and tiling energy beam reads on the claimed trailing energy beam). Symeonidis further teaches the spot size of the energy beam (e.g., at the target surface) can be at least about 50 micrometers (μm), 55 μm, 60 μm, 65 μm, 70 μm, 75 μm, 80 μm, 85 μm, 90 μm, 95 μm, 100 μm, 150 μm, 200 μm, 250 μm, 300 μm, 350, 400 μm, 500 μm, 600 μm, 700 μm, 800 μm, 900 μm, 1000 μm or 1500 μm ([0242]). Symeonidis teaches the energy beam can be focused or defocused ([0242]).
Symeonidis therefore reads on the limitation wherein the trailing energy beam has a spot size larger than the leading energy beam of claim 23.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0250772 A1 of Symeonidis (as cited in prior Office action), as applied to the claim 1 above, in view of WO 2018/005439 A1 of Buller (as cited in prior Office action).
Regarding claim 5, Symeonidis teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Symeonidis teaches at least a portion of a transformed material (e.g., that forms a hardened material) is being re-melted during the fabrication of the 3D object ([0152]). Symeonidis teaches the re-melting may be after the melt pool has been at least partially hardened (e.g., solidified) ([0152]).
However, Symeonidis is silent to re-melting of the fused region is carried out after the fused region has cooled to below 350°C.
Buller teaches three-dimensional (3D) printing processes, apparatuses, software, and systems for the production of at least one desired 3D object (Abstract), and is similarly concerned with powder bed 3D printing ([0153]).
Regarding the temperature at which the fused region cools before re-melting, it would have been necessary and obvious to look to the prior art for exemplary temperatures at which materials solidify. Buller provides this teaching showing a 3D printing method wherein as the first energy source heats up the pre-transformed material to cause at least a portion of it to melt, the molten material will remain molten as the material bed is held at or above the material super cooling temperature of the material, but below its melting point ([0305]). Buller teaches the solidus temperature of the material can be a temperature wherein the material is in a solid state at a given pressure (e.g., ambient pressure) and the solidus temperature can be at most about 500° C, 400° C, 300° C, 200° C, or 100° C, for example, the solidus temperature is less than about 300°C ([0305], keeping a temperature below 300°C would allow for solidification of the fused region and overlaps with the claimed limitation of “below 350°C”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow for solidification of the fused region before the re-melting step of the prior art combination, and adjusting the temperature of the fused region, such as within the claimed ranges, as taught by Buller, in order to form a 3D object via powder bed fusion using known and tested temperatures predictably suitable for solidifying material before re-melting.
In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2144.05 I.
Modified Symeonidis therefore reads on the limitation wherein the re-melting of the fused region is carried out after the fused region has cooled to below 350°C of claim 5.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0250772 A1 of Symeonidis (as cited in prior Office action), as applied to the claim 1 above, in view of “DP1905 Spherical H13 Steel Powder” of Stanford Advanced Materials (as cited in prior Office action).
Regarding claim 20, Symeonidis teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Symeonidis teaches using a tool steel ([0194]).
However, Symeonidis does not explicitly disclose wherein the metal material is a material selected from H13 and W360 tool steel.
Regarding the specific tool steel types, it would have been necessary and obvious to look to the prior art for exemplary tool steels used in additive manufacturing using powder materials. Stanford Advanced Materials provides this teaching showing H13 steel powder (Title). Stanford Advanced Materials is considered analogous art since it is similarly concerned with tool steel powders that can be used in additive manufacturing methods. Stanford Advanced Materials teaches H13 powder is used in additive manufacturing and in a variety of metal 3D printers including Renishaw, EOS, ConceptLaser, SLM, 3Dsystems, Arcam, and more (Description section). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of Symeonidis, and adjusting and varying the type of tool steel, such as H13, as taught by Stanford Advanced Materials, in order to perform a conventional powder bed fusion method using known and tested tool steel powders predictably suitable for additive manufacturing applications.
Modified Symeonidis therefore reads on the limitation wherein the metal material is a material selected from H13 and W360 tool steel of claim 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that disclosure that one energy beam travels at a constant speed says nothing about the relative speed of two energy beams and the delay time referred to in Symeonidis is not the time between irradiation by successive energy beams but a time in which an energy beam is moved from a first location to a second location (remarks, pages 3-4).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., relative speed of two energy beams) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In this case, Symeonidis teaches the speed of the energy beam along the path remains the same ([0166], reads on the claimed same speed) and the energy beam may travel at a speed comprising a constant speed ([0271], reads on the claimed same speed). Symeonidis teaches during the printing, the first energy beam and/or the second energy beam has a constant or varied delay time ([0015], emphasis added, constant delay time reads on the claimed fixed time apart since the delay time applies to the first and/or second energy beam). Regarding the delay time, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that a delay time applying to the first and second energy beam during printing, as taught by Symeonidis, implies that both beams are moving at a fixed time apart. A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art. See MPEP § 2164.01. In this case, while Symeonidis does not use the same words as Applicant, Symeonidis reads on the instant claim, as described in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections in this Office action. Furthermore, Symeonidis teaches an embodiment wherein at least two of the first energy beam, the second energy beam, and the third energy beam have the same speed ([0022], “at least one energy beam characteristic that is the same” and “energy beam characteristic comprises wavelength, cross-section, speed, power density, or focal point”).
Additionally, patents are relevant for all they contain and disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). See MPEP 2123(I-II). In this case, the disclosure of Symeonidis includes embodiments with energy beams having a constant speed and where two energy beams have the same speed. The delay time of Symeonidis is not limited to moving a single energy beam as argued by Applicant and includes moving both beams at a constant speed. Symeonidis therefore reads on all of the limitations of claim 1 as outlined in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection in this Office action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYELA ALDAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0309. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday: 10 am - 7 pm and alternate Friday: 10 am - 6 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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/M.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights