DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 05/12/2026. As directed by the amendment: claim(s) 1-2 has/have been amended; no claim(s) has/have been cancelled and new claim(s) 19-20 has/have been added. Thus, claims 1-14 and 16-20 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stevenson et al (US 2017/0326815).
Regarding claim 10, Stevenson discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a build platform (Fig. 1 #114 build plate),
an energy beam or an irradiation device (Fig. 1 #120 laser),
a recoater (Fig. 1 #116 recoater arm),
and a controller ([0004] lines 20-24 ---" The laser 120 may be controlled by a computer system including a processor and a memory. The computer system may determine a scan pattern for each layer and control laser 120 to irradiate the powder material according to the scan pattern.),
wherein the apparatus is configured to carry out the selective irradiation of the powder bed according to claim 1 (If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.)
PNG
media_image1.png
540
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Stevenson teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 10), and Stevenson teaches wherein the apparatus comprises a control ([0004] lines 20-24 ---" The laser 120 may be controlled by a computer system including a processor and a memory. The computer system may determine a scan pattern for each layer and control laser 120 to irradiate the powder material according to the scan pattern.) or irradiation apparatus.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-6, 8-9, 11-13, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson et al (US 2017/0326815) in view of Jiang et al (CN 106735208), Mark et al (US 2018/0154437) and Hayes et al (US 6,830,643).
Regarding claim 1, Stevenson discloses a method of additive manufacturing of a component comprising:
a) providing a component geometry comprising a hole that represents a hole in the additively manufactured component ([0005] ---"The apparatus 100 is controlled by a computer executing a control program. For example, the apparatus 100 includes a processor (e.g., a microprocessor) executing firmware, an operating system, or other software that provides an interface between the apparatus 100 and an operator. The computer receives, as input, a three dimensional model of the object to be formed. For example, the three dimensional model is generated using a computer aided design (CAD) program. The computer analyzes the model and proposes a tool path for each object within the model. The operator may define or adjust various parameters of the scan pattern such as power, speed, and spacing, but generally does not program the tool path directly.” Examiner considers the hole to be the space where Fig 3 #310 support structure occupies before the support structure is built.),
b) selectively irradiating a powder bed with an energy beam according to said geometry in a layerwise manner, wherein in at least some layers of the component comprising the hole, respective regions which define the hole are irradiated with the energy beam such that a supporting structure is generated in the hole ([0010] lines 2-9 ---"The method includes: (a) irradiating a layer of powder in a powder bed with an energy beam in a series of scan lines to form a fused region; (b) providing a subsequent layer of powder over the powder bed by passing a recoater arm over the powder bed from a first side of the powder bed to a second side of the powder bed; and (c) repeating steps (a) and (b) until the object and at least one support structure is formed in the powder bed.”),
However, Stevenson does not disclose wherein an irradiation pattern for the regions is chosen such that scanning vectors of said pattern overlap with an irradiation pattern for the component by about 100 pm or more; wherein removing the support structure from the component reveals the hole in the additively manufactured component, wherein in the respective regions all the powder therein is irradiated and solidified to form respective unipartite portions of the supporting structure, and wherein the respective unipartite portions fully fill the respective regions.
Nonetheless, Jiang teaches an irradiation pattern for the regions is chosen such that scanning vectors of said pattern overlap with an irradiation pattern for the component by about 100 µm or more (Page 3 para. 9 --- As a preferable solution, the step forming technique parameter in the step S5 comprises: the laser power is 100 to 360 W, scanning speed is 500 to 1800mm/S, the laser overlap is 0.90 to 0.12 mm, paving layer thickness is 0.02 to 0.06 mm, supplementing quantity is 0.03 to 0.08 mm, light compensation coefficient is 0.10 to 0.15.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Stevenson by incorporating the scan pattern overlap as taught by Jiang for the benefit of achieving the desired mechanical properties in the build object.
Furthermore, Mark in the same field of endeavor being additive manufacturing, teaches wherein removing the support structure from the component reveals the hole in the additively manufactured component (Shown in the figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
644
764
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Stevenson by incorporating the debinding of the support structures as taught by Mark for the benefit of preparing the workpiece for further processing. (Fig. 7 shows the debinding step performed before the sintering step.)
Furthermore, Hayes in the same field of endeavor being additive manufacturing teaches wherein in the respective regions all the powder therein is irradiated and solidified to form respective unipartite portions of the supporting structure (Fig. 2a shows the support #22 to be a solid structure), and wherein the respective unipartite portions fully fill the respective regions (Fig. 2a shows the #22 support to fill the respective support region.), wherein the unipartite portions (Fig. 2a #22 support) have a lower rigidity than a structure of the component (Col. 9 lines 52-62 ---" Materials that can be used to make an object (6) or part (8) include polymers such as nylons, polycarbonates, polystyrenes, phenolics, polyethylene, ABS or epoxies, and metals such as zinc, tin, solders, copper, stainless steels, steel, tungsten carbide/cobalt, bronze or aluminium. Powders that are or are based on ceramic materials such as silica, zirconium silicate, molochite, china clay, alumina may also be used to make an object (6) or part (8) and alternatively the powder can comprise or incorporate a glass, or any other material that is required.” and
Col 9 lines 62-67 and Col. 10 lines 1-9 ---" A support (22) employing different material from the object (6) or parts (8) can be made with a polymer such as phenolic, epoxy, polyethylene oxide, polyethylene glycol, polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinyl acetate, poly (2-ethyl-2-oxazoline) or a nylon, or can be made with a sugar such as maltose, fructose or glucose or indeed salts such as magnesium oxide, magnesium hydroxide, calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, sodium oxide or sodium hydroxide, sodium chloride can be used. Ceramic materials such as alumina, zirconium silicate, molochite, china clay or silica may be used, and metals such as zinc or tin may be used. Alternatively, wax, resin, gelatin, talc, starch, gum arabic may be used. A combination of any of the previously mention materials can be used. The support material may also be a material that is soluble in water or organic solvent.”; Some of the above materials will have a lower rigidity than some the materials used to form the component.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Stevenson to incorporate the solid support structure filing the support region as taught by Hayes for the benefit of providing steadiness of hold for the component being formed.
Regarding claim 2, Stevenson in view of Jiang, Mark, and Hayes teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Hayes teaches wherein the unipartite portions comprise a volume or relative density in a range between 90% and 94% of that of the structure of the component (Col. 10 lines 3-5 ---" Ceramic materials such as alumina, zirconium silicate, molochite, china clay or silica may be used, and metals such as zinc or tin may be used.”; Ceramics are known to have a porosity between 5% and 20%. Evidence of this property is disclosed in Rice, page 10 second para.; api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9781482269963_A31978872/preview-9781482269963_A31978872.pdf; Volume percentage is calculated by subtracting the porosity percentage from the total percentage. The above porosity would allow one of ordinary skill to achieve a volume of 80% to 95%, which includes the claimed range for volume.).
Regarding claim 3, Stevenson in view of Jiang, Mark, and Hayes teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Stevenson teaches wherein the hole (Examiner considers the hole to be the space where Fig 4 #310 support structure occupies before the support structure is built.) extends in a direction parallel to a buildup direction of the component (Shown in the figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
247
473
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Stevenson in view of Jiang, Mark, and Hayes teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the regions are irradiated at a hatching distance (D) being two to four times a hatching distance (d) chosen for the irradiation of the structure of the component.
Stevenson does, however, teach that the operator may define or adjust various parameters of the scan pattern such as power, speed, and spacing (hatch). Therefore, the hatch is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that the object is made with adequate support. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that hatch is chosen based on the object being built, was disclosed in the prior art by Stevenson, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Stevenson to have the regions being irradiated at a hatching distance (D) two to four times a hatching distance (d) chosen for the irradiation of the structure of the component.
Regarding claim 5, Stevenson in view of Jiang, Mark, and Hayes teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the regions are irradiated at a scan speed being greater than a scan speed chosen for the irradiation of the structure of the component.
Stevenson does, however, teach that the operator may define or adjust various parameters of the scan pattern such as power, speed, and spacing (hatch). Therefore, the scan speed is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that the object is made with adequate support. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that scan speed is chosen based on the object being built, was disclosed in the prior art by Stevenson, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Stevenson to have the regions being irradiated at a scan speed greater than a scan speed chosen for the irradiation of the structure of the component.
Regarding claim 6, Stevenson in view of Jiang, Mark, and Hayes teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein a diameter of the hole in the component after the additive manufacturing and before final machining is undersized compared to a target diameter of the hole after the final machining, and wherein the undersize is selected to prevent occurrence of near- wall porosity at an interface of the hole after final machining.
Stevenson does, however, teach that the three dimensional model is generated using a computer aided design (CAD) program. The operator inputs into the computer desired geometry of the object to be built. The operator choses the size of the hole to be built. Therefore, the geometry of the hole is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that the object is formed with a hole having the desired geometry and near-wall porosity is prevented. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. a hole is formed in the object based on the object being built, was disclosed in the prior art by Stevenson, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Stevenson to have a diameter of the hole in the component after the additive manufacturing and before final machining being undersized compared to a target diameter of the hole after the final machining.
Regarding claim 8, Stevenson in view of Jiang, Mark, and Hayes teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Stevenson teaches wherein the regions defining the hole in the as-manufactured and optionally thermally post-treated component are machined ([0044] lines 4-6 ---" The support structure may be removed by mechanical procedures such as twisting, breaking, cutting, grinding, filing, or polishing.”).
Regarding claim 9, Stevenson discloses computer program product stored on a non-transitory computer readable media ([0004] lines 20-24 ---" The laser 120 may be controlled by a computer system including a processor and a memory. The computer system may determine a scan pattern for each layer and control laser 120 to irradiate the powder material according to the scan pattern.)
However, Stevenson does not teach comprising: instructions which, when is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the selectively irradiating of the powder bed according to claim 1.
Nonetheless, Stevenson in view of Jiang, Mark, and Hayes teaches instructions which, when is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the selectively irradiating of the powder bed according to claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computer program product stored on a non-transitory computer readable media of Stevenson by incorporating the instructions as taught by Stevenson in view of Jiang, Mark, and Hayes for the benefit of providing a software means for defining or adjusting various parameters of the scan pattern such as power, speed, and spacing.
Regarding claim 11, Stevenson in view of Jiang, Mark, and Hayes teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 4), but does not teach wherein the hatching distance (D) chosen for irradiating the regions is three times the hatching distance (d) chosen for irradiating the structure of the component.
Stevenson does, however, teach that the operator may define or adjust various parameters of the scan pattern such as power, speed, and spacing (hatch). Therefore, the hatch is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that the object is made with adequate support. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that hatch is chosen based on the object being built, was disclosed in the prior art by Stevenson, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Stevenson to have the hatching distance (D) chosen for irradiating the regions being three times the hatching distance (d) chosen for irradiating the structure of the component.
Regarding claim 12, Stevenson in view of Jiang, Mark, and Hayes teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 5), but does not teach herein the scan speed chosen for irradiating the regions is two times greater than the scan speed chosen for irradiating the structure of the component.
Stevenson does, however, teach that the operator may define or adjust various parameters of the scan pattern such as power, speed, and spacing (hatch). Therefore, the scan speed is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that the object is made with adequate support. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that scan speed is chosen based on the object being built, was disclosed in the prior art by Stevenson, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Stevenson to have the scan speed chosen for irradiating the regions being two times greater than the scan speed chosen for irradiating the structure of the component.
Regarding claim 16, Stevenson in view of Jiang, Mark, and Hayes teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Stevenson teaches further comprising heat treating the component while the supporting structure is disposed within the hole ([0028] lines 5-8 ---" For example, the object 300 and support structure 310 may be subjected to a post-anneal treatment and/or chemical treatment and then subsequently removed from the object 300 and/or build plate.”).
Regarding claim 17, Stevenson in view of Jiang, Mark, and Hayes teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Hayes teaches wherein the respective unipartite portions collectively form a unipartite supporting structure that fully fills the hole (Fig. 2a shows the #22 support to fill the respective support region.).
PNG
media_image4.png
280
438
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Stevenson in view of Jiang, Mark, and Hayes to incorporate the solid support structure filing the support region as taught by Hayes for the benefit of providing steadiness of hold for the component being formed.
Regarding claim 19, Stevenson in view of Jiang, Mark, and Hayes teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Hayes teaches wherein the unipartite portions comprise a porosity in a range between 6% and 10% (Col. 10 lines 3-5 ---" Ceramic materials such as alumina, zirconium silicate, molochite, china clay or silica may be used, and metals such as zinc or tin may be used.”; Ceramics are known to have a porosity between 5% and 20%.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Stevenson to incorporate the porosity in a range between 6% and 10% for the unipartite portions of the support region as taught by Hayes for the benefit of providing steadiness of hold for the component being formed.
Regarding claim 20, Stevenson in view of Jiang, Mark, and Hayes teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 6), and Stevenson teaches further comprising: final machining the hole to the target diameter ([0044]lines 1-6 ---" When it becomes necessary to remove the support structure 310/610/1010 from the object 300/600/1000, the operator may apply force to break the support structure free when contact surfaces are present. The support structure may be removed by mechanical procedures such as twisting, breaking, cutting, grinding, filing, or polishing.”).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson et al (US 2017/0326815) in view of Jiang et al (CN 106735208), Mark et al (US 2018/0154437), and Hayes et al (US 6,830,643) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Bruck et al (US 2015/0132173).
Regarding claim 7, Stevenson in view of Jiang, Mark, and Hayes teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein a raw material of the powder bed is a nickel- or cobalt-based superalloy.
Nonetheless, Bruck teaches wherein a raw material of the powder bed is a nickel- or cobalt-based superalloy ([0006] lines 7-8 ---" Superalloys typically include a high nickel or cobalt content.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Stevenson in view of Jiang, Mark, and Hayes by incorporating the powder as taught by Bruck for the benefit of supplying a raw building material that exhibits excellent mechanical strength and resistance to creep at high temperatures.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson et al (US 2017/0326815) in view of Jiang et al (CN 106735208), Mark et al (US 2018/0154437), and Hayes et al (US 6,830,643) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Nufer et al (US 5,798,469).
Regarding claim 18, Stevenson in view of Jiang, Mark, and Hayes teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein in other layers of the component comprising the hole, powder in respective regions is not irradiated.
Nonetheless, Nufer in the same field of endeavor being additive manufacturing teaches wherein in other layers of the component comprising the hole, powder in respective regions is not irradiated (Fig. 9a #92 non-sinterable layers).
PNG
media_image5.png
258
260
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Stevenson in view of Jiang, Mark, and Hayes by incorporating the un-radiated powder in other layers of the component as taught by Nufer for the benefit of supporting and isolating the other sintered regions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited prior art does not disclose, teach, or suggest wherein the undersize is between 100 µm and 400 µm in diameter.
Response to Arguments
For claim 1:
Applicant's arguments filed 05/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach unipartite portions of the support structure is entirely less rigid than the component. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Hayes teaches materials for the unipartite portions of the support structure that are less rigid than the materials used to form the component. One of ordinary skill could choose a material from the disclosed materials listed for the unipartite portions of the support structure that would be less rigid than the disclosed materials listed for the component. See the rejection of claim 1.
Furthermore, changing the support rails of Stevenson to a solid structured support as taught by Hayes would not change the principle operation of the support. The result would still be a component being supported.
For claim 2:
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 05/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2 under 35 U.S.C. 1-3 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hayes et al (US 6,830,643).
Applicant argues that the cite prior art cannot be relied upon top teach that strength/rigidity are results effective variables. Examiner respectfully agrees.
However, a new argument is proposed for claim 2 in view of Hayes. Hayes teaches that ceramics can be used to form the support structure. Ceramics are known to have a porosity of between 5% and 20%. This range is evidenced by Rice. Subtracting the porosity percentage from the total volume percentage would yield the volume percentage. A volume of 80% to 95% is calculated for ceramics. The claimed volume is realized by the volume for ceramics given by Hayes.
For claims 4 and 11:
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that line spacing is not a results effective variable. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Stevenson teaches that the operator chooses the spacing of the scan lines. [0005] lines 11-13 ---" The operator may define or adjust various parameters of the scan pattern such as power, speed, and spacing, but generally does not program the tool path directly.” The scan line spacing is a results effective variable because the operator can choose the spacing to be whatever dimension suitable to form the intended structure.
For claims 5 and 12:
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that scan speed is not a results effective variable. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Stevenson teaches that the operator chooses the scan speed of the laser. [0005] lines 11-13 ---" The operator may define or adjust various parameters of the scan pattern such as power, speed, and spacing, but generally does not program the tool path directly.” The scan speed is a results effective variable because the operator can choose the speed to be whatever rate suitable to form the intended structure.
For claim 6:
In response to applicant's argument that the cited prior art does not teach the undersize is selected to prevent occurrence of near-wall porosity, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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 JOE E MILLS JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/JOE E MILLS JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/CHRIS Q LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights