DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 10/27/2025 has been entered. Claims 2-6, 8-15, 17, and 19 remain pending in the application. Claim(s) 17 and 19 are withdrawn due to a restriction requirement. Claims 1, 7, 16, and 18 are canceled. Claim 14 is currently amended. No new claims have been added. Applicant's amendments to the abstract have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 06/26/2025. Applicant's amendments to claim 14 have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 06/26/2025. Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 10/27/2025, with respect to the 112(b) rejection of claim 13 previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 06/26/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s argument that the term “around” is used as “enclose” rather than a term of degree (remarks, page 8). The 112(b) rejection of claim 13 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 2-3, 8-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2017/0247776 A1 of Wegmann (as cited in prior Office action).
Regarding claim 2, Wegmann teaches a process for producing high-purity magnesium by means of distillation at reduced pressure, and apparatuses for performing the process using a starting material in the form of a magnesium-containing metal melt (Abstract; the starting material is a magnesium-containing metal melt and the target material is a high-purity magnesium; the apparatuses therefore read on the claimed device for producing a target material from starting material).
Wegmann therefore reads on the limitation a device for producing a target material, from starting material of claim 2.
Wegmann teaches a retort (1, Fig. 3, reads on the claimed chamber) with two troughs that contain the melt (2, Fig. 3, two troughs read on the claimed at least one trough since it is in the chamber and receives the starting material) ([0014]). Wegmann teaches a heating element (5, Fig. 3, reads on the claimed first heating element) surrounds the retort, for example in the form of a resistance furnace, brings the upper region of the retort to a temperature above the boiling point of magnesium ([0014], since the retort is heated above a boiling point using the heating element, the heating element reads on the claimed first heating element is configured to heat the chamber such that the starting material being received in the trough is vaporized).
Wegmann therefore reads on the limitation the device comprising: a chamber; at least one trough that is provided in the chamber, wherein the trough is configured to receive the starting material; and a first heating element, wherein the first heating element is configured to heat the chamber such that the starting material being received in the trough is vaporized of claim 2.
Wegmann teaches when the distillation process is finished and the retort is cooled, the high-purity magnesium (21, Fig. 3) is present in the lower region (33, Fig. 3) of the condensation vessel (3, Fig. 1, which includes crucible base 34 as shown in Fig. 3, reads on the claimed at least one collecting vessel ([0020], [0030]). Since the condensation vessel and crucible base receive the liquid condensate and final high-purity magnesium product, the vessel is configured to receive a liquid condensate that is formed upon a condensation of the starting material and in which the liquid condensate will constitute the target material.
Wegmann therefore reads on the limitation at least one collecting vessel, wherein the collecting vessel is configured to receive a liquid condensate that is formed upon a condensation of the starting material and in which the liquid condensate will constitute the target material of claim 2.
Wegmann teaches the retort (1, Fig. 3, reads on claimed chamber) is evacuated via the supply chamber (13, Fig. 3) which has a cover (14, Fig. 3), preferably in the form of a removable vacuum flange, which has a number of connections besides the vacuum feedthrough (63, Fig. 3) where one connection leads via a line (71, Fig. 3) and a valve (72, Fig. 3) to a vacuum pump (73, Fig. 3), a further connection leads via a line (74, Fig. 3) to a vacuum measuring instrument (75, Fig. 3), and a third connection leads via a line (76, Fig. 3), a valve (77, Fig. 3) and a pressure and/or flow regulator (78, Fig. 3) to an inert gas source (79, Fig. 3), for example in the form of an argon pressure cylinder ([0018]-[0019]). Wegmann teaches the retort (1, Fig. 3, reads on claimed chamber) is connected to the inert gas source (79, Fig. 3) via the flow and/or pressure regulator (78, Fig. 3) by opening the valve (77, Fig. 3) until the pressure has risen again into the setpoint range ([0019]).
Since the retort is connected to the vacuum pump and inert gas source and is evacuated via these systems, Wegmann therefore reads on the limitation a first source of negative pressure that is in connection with the chamber and that is configured to evacuate the chamber or a first supply device that is in connection with the chamber and that is configured to supply an inert gas to the chamber of claim 2.
Wegmann teaches the upper region (11, Fig. 3) of the retort (1, Fig. 3, reads on the claimed chamber) is heated to a temperature above the boiling point of the magnesium, within the limits of the level lines (8 and 81, Fig. 3), and is then held constant, such that steam rises from the boiling magnesium-containing metal melt (2, Fig. 3, reads on the claimed starting material) in accordance with the arrows (91, Fig. 3) and fills the interior of the upper region of the retort, wherein it can also condense into liquid above the level line (81, Fig. 3) and then flows back downwards again into the melt ([0014], [0030]). Wegmann further teaches a water-cooled flange (15, Fig. 3) ([0014], [0030]).
Since the steam condenses in the upper region of the retort, this upper region and the water-cooled flange, which helps cool this region, reads on the claimed at least one condensation device.
Wegmann therefore reads on the limitation at least one condensation device, wherein said condensation device is configured to condensate the starting material that has been vaporized, whereby the liquid condensate is formed of claim 2.
Since the condensation vessel (3, Fig. 3, reads on claimed collecting vessel) and the upper region (11, Fig. 3) and the water-cooled flange (15, Fig. 3), which read on the condensation device are all separate components, Wegmann therefore reads on the limitation wherein the collecting vessel and the condensation device are formed separately from one another of claim 2.
Wegmann teaches a barrier unit (64, Fig. 3, reads on the claimed first gate device) for connecting the retort (1, Fig. 3, reads on the claimed chamber) to the supply chamber (13, Fig. 3) ([0026]). Wegmann teaches the barrier unit is opened to avoid excessive condensation of magnesium steam in the supply chamber ([0019]). Since magnesium is present in the supply chamber and the retort, the barrier unit is in connection with the retort and therefore the starting material is introducible into the retort via the barrier unit.
Regarding limitations which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed apparatus, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
In this case, since the device of Wegmann has a first gate device in connection with the chamber, it recites all the structural limitations needed for the apparatus to have the starting material be introducible into the chamber via said first gate device.
Wegmann therefore reads on the limitation a first gate device that is in connection with the chamber such that the starting material is introducible into the chamber via said first gate device of claim 2.
Wegmann therefore reads on all the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Wegmann teaches the device of claim 2 as described above.
Wegmann teaches there is starting material present in the chamber (Abstract).
Regarding limitations which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed apparatus, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
In this case, since the device of Wegmann teaches a starting material, a chamber, a first gate device, a vacuum system, and inert gas source, it recites all the structural limitations needed for the apparatus to be configured such that the starting material is introduced into the chamber via said first gate device while the chamber remains evacuated or under an inert gas atmosphere.
Wegmann therefore reads on the limitation wherein the device is configured such that the starting material is introduced into the chamber via said first gate device while the chamber remains evacuated or under an inert gas atmosphere of claim 3.
Regarding claim 8, Wegmann teaches the device of claim 2 as described above.
Wegmann teaches the retort can be opened, for example by a sawn cut along the dashed level line (83, Fig. 3). Since the upper region of the retort reads on the condensation device, the condensation device is an integral part of the chamber, and can be a separable part when sawn off as taught by Wegmann. Since the upper region of the retort and the water-cooled flange read on the condensation device, both of these components are considered to project from an upper wall of the chamber.
Wegmann therefore reads on the limitation wherein the condensation device projects from an upper wall of the chamber at least partially into an interior of the chamber, and/or wherein the condensation device is an integral or a separable part of the chamber of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Wegmann teaches the device of claim 2 as described above.
Wegmann teaches the water-cooled flange (15, Fig. 3, reads on claimed condensation device) ([0030]). Since the flange is water-cooled, it is considered a heat exchanger given that the flange cools. A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art. See MPEP § 2164.01.
Wegmann therefore reads on the limitation wherein the condensation device corresponds to a heat exchanger of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Wegmann teaches the device of claim 2 as described above.
Wegmann teaches the opening (31, Fig. 3) in the condensation vessel (3, Fig. 3, reads on the claimed collecting vessel) is covered by a roof-shaped graphite cover (41, Fig. 3, reads on the claimed at least one cover element) with radial bores leading upwardly at an incline for the entry of the magnesium steam according to arrow (92, Fig. 3) ([0024], the roof-shape and incline allows for the magnesium to flow to the troughs containing melt 2 as seen in Fig. 3). Wegmann teaches the cover (41, Fig. 3, reads on the claimed at least one cover element) can also be formed in a manner more complex than that in the figure, for example by also placing lateral screens in front of the radial bores, such that no splashes of the fiercely boiling melt of the starting material 2 can be flung directly into the condensation vessel 3 ([0024], Fig. 3, cover 41 shown in Fig. 3 is arranged above the condensation vessel 3).
Wegmann therefore reads on the limitation further comprising: at least one cover element, wherein the cover element is at least partially arranged above the collecting vessel with respect to a vertical direction and is configured to guide the starting material that has been vaporized and that has condensed at an upper wall of the chamber back into the trough of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Wegmann teaches the device of claim 2 as described above.
Wegmann teaches a roof-shaped graphite cover (41, Fig. 3, reads on the claimed at least one cover element). As seen in Fig. 3, the roof-shape of the cover has angles of less than 90° with respect to a vertical direction.
Wegmann therefore reads on the limitation wherein the cover element extends from a main body of the condensation device laterally outwards, or wherein the cover element extends from the upper wall of the chamber at least partially into the chamber; and/or wherein the cover element is arranged at an angle with respect to a vertical direction, and wherein the angle is about 90° or less of claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, Wegmann teaches the device of claim 2 as described above.
Wegmann teaches a conical seat (113, Fig. 3) of the intermediate wall (112, Fig. 3) ([0025], Fig. 3 shows the conical seat has two angles which lead to the opening 31 of the condensation vessel 3). Wegmann teaches a barrier unit (64, Fig. 3, reads on the claimed first gate device) for connecting the retort (1, reads on the claimed chamber) to the supply chamber (13, Fig. 3) ([0026], the barrier unit serves as a sealing element when closed and is located around an upper region of the condensation vessel 3).
Wegmann therefore reads on the limitation further comprising: a funnel element that is arranged above an inlet opening of the collecting vessel, wherein the funnel element is configured to guide the condensate into the inlet opening of the collecting vessel, and/or
at least one sealing element that is arranged around an upper region of the collecting vessel, wherein the sealing element is configured to provide a sealing between the upper region of the collecting vessel and the chamber of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Wegmann teaches the device of claim 2 as described above.
Wegmann teaches an additional heating element (51, Fig. 1) to maintain the temperature in the lower region of the condensation vessel above the melting point of magnesium ([0021], heating element 51 is seen in the lower region of the chamber in Fig. 1 and is also in the upper region of the chamber).
Wegmann therefore reads on the limitation further comprising: a further heating element, wherein said further heating element is arranged in a lower region of the chamber and at an upper region of the collecting vessel, and wherein said further heating element is configured to heat the upper region of the collecting vessel to a vessel temperature being above a melting point of the starting material and to heat a lower region of the collecting vessel to a vessel temperature being above a melting point of the target material and/or a liquidus temperature of the target material of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, Wegmann teaches the device of claim 2 as described above.
Wegmann teaches the crucible of the condensation vessel is graphite ([0016], [0023], reads on the claimed collecting vessel made of graphite) and the retort is made of stainless steel (claim 7, reads on the claimed chamber made of stainless steel). The chamber and collecting vessel are therefore made of different materials.
Wegmann therefore reads on the limitation wherein the condensation device is made of a material that differs from a material the collecting vessel is made from, and/or wherein the chamber is made of a material that differs from the material the collecting vessel is made from, and/or wherein the chamber is made of a material comprising at least one of heat-resistant steel, stainless steel, and chromium steel, and/or wherein the condensation device is made of a material comprising at least one of heat-resistant steel, stainless steel, chromium steel, graphite, boron nitride, one or more metals, and one or more oxides, and/or wherein the collecting vessel is made of a material comprising at least one of graphite, boron nitride, one or more metals, and one or more oxides of claim 15.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0247776 A1 of Wegmann (as cited in prior Office action), as applied to claim 2 above, in view of DE 3007260 A1 of Belskij (as cited in prior Office action and in IDS mailed 08/17/2022 with reference to its English machine translation).
Regarding claim 4, Wegmann teaches the device of claim 2 as described above.
Wegmann teaches a barrier unit (64, Fig. 3, reads on the claimed first gate device) for connecting the retort (1, Fig. 3, reads on the claimed chamber) to the supply chamber (13, Fig. 3, reads on the claimed antechamber) ([0026]).
Wegmann therefore reads on the limitation further comprising: an antechamber that is in connection with the chamber via the first gate device of claim 4.
However, Wegmann does not explicitly disclose further comprising: a heated antechamber that is in connection with the chamber via the first gate device, wherein the antechamber is configured to receive and pre-melt the starting material and to transfer the starting material that is pre-melt into the trough via the first gate device; and a second source of negative pressure that is in connection with the antechamber in order to evacuate the antechamber of claim 4.
Belskij teaches a vacuum distillation apparatus for refining metals (Title). Belskij is considered analogous art to Wegmann since they are similarly concerned with a device producing a target material from a starting material, and both include a chamber, heating element, collecting vessel, condensation device, first gate device, and vacuum systems.
Belskij teaches a vacuum chamber (1, Fig. 1) with a heater (3, Fig. 1), and a connecting pipe (6, Fig. 1) ([0019], the vacuum chamber with a heater reads on the claimed heated antechamber). Belskij further a condensate collecting device consisting of a drain pipe (10, Fig. 1) and a receiving container (11, Fig. 1) is connected to the lower part of the vacuum chamber (1, Fig. 1) along its axis ([0019]). Belskij teaches to generate a negative pressure in the vacuum chamber (1, Fig. 1) a vacuum system is available, which is connected to the vacuum chamber via a nozzle (25, Fig. 1) ([0023], the vacuum system reads on the claimed second source of negative pressure in connection with the antechamber).
In re Dilnot, 319 F.2d 188, 138 USPQ 248 (CCPA 1963) (Claim directed to a method of producing a cementitious structure wherein a stable air foam is introduced into a slurry of cementitious material differed from the prior art only in requiring the addition of the foam to be continuous. The court held the claimed continuous operation would have been obvious in light of the batch process of the prior art.).
In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Wegmann to include the heated antechamber of Belskij to enable a continuous process by melting the material before treatment in the device of Wegmann.
Modified Wegmann therefore reads on all the limitations of claim 4.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0247776 A1 of Wegmann (as cited in prior Office action), as applied to claim 2 above, in view of US 3145095 A of Franzen (as cited in prior Office action).
Regarding claims 5-6, Wegmann teaches the device of claim 2 as described above.
However, Wegmann does not explicitly disclose further comprising: a second gate device that is in connection with the at least one collecting vessel, wherein the condensate is removable from the at least one collecting vessel via said second gate device of claim 5 and further comprising: a retrieval chamber that is in connection with the collecting vessel via the second gate device and with the first source of negative pressure or with the first supply device,
wherein the retrieval chamber is configured to extract the condensate from the collecting vessel of claim 6.
Franzen teaches a method and apparatus for continuously tapping and degassing molten metal into ingot molds (Abstract). Franzen and Wegmann are similarly concerned with a device producing a target material from a starting material, and both include a chamber, heating element, collecting vessel, and vacuum systems.
Franzen teaches a discharge nozzle (81, Fig. 1, reads on the claimed second gate device since it can be opened and closed to control the material flow) which projects through the bottom of the ladle and is directly aligned with ingot molds (103, Fig. 1) therebelow (col. 3, lines 69-72). Franzen teaches an object of this arrangement is to provide a method of continuously teeming very large heats of molten metal into ingot molds (col. 1, lines 56-60, claims 5-6). As seen in Fig. 1, Franzen teaches ingot molds (103, Fig. 1, reads on the claimed retrieval chamber) in connection with the tundish (60, Fig. 1, reads on claimed collecting vessel) via the discharge nozzle (81, Fig. 1, reads on the claimed second gate device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Wegmann with the discharge nozzle and ingot molds of Franzen to enable a method of continuously teeming very large heats of molten metal into ingot molds, as taught by Franzen.
Since the ingot molds of Franzen are in connection with the collecting vessel, which in turn is in connection with the vacuum and inert gas systems of Wegmann, modified Wegmann therefore reads on all the limitations of claims 5 and 6.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0247776 A1 of Wegmann (as cited in prior Office action) in view of US 3145095 A of Franzen (as cited in prior Office action), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of “Titanium nitride film as a protective coating for a vacuum deposition chamber” of Komiya (as cited in prior Office action).
Regarding claim 12, Wegmann teaches the device of claim 2 as described above.
Wegmann teaches the crucible of the condensation vessel is graphite ([0016], [0023]) and the retort is made of stainless steel (claim 7, reads on the claimed chamber).
However, Wegmann does not explicitly disclose wherein at least part of an outer wall of the condensation device and/or of an inner wall of the chamber and/or an inner wall of the collecting vessel is coated with a coating, and wherein the coating is inert of claim 12.
Komiya teaches a titanium nitride film as a protective coating for a vacuum deposition chamber (Title) and is similarly concerned with using vacuum chambers in the treatment of metals and solving the problem of reducing contamination in the treated metal.
Komiya teaches a hard, anti-corrosive titanium nitride coating in a stainless steel vacuum chamber which is useful as a protective coating and improves outgassing rates compared to a bare stainless steel chamber (Abstract and 4. Conclusions, one of ordinary skill in the art understands improving outgassing rates minimizes contamination in the materials treated in the chamber).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of modified Wegmann with the coating of Komiya to provide anti-corrosive and protective coating which improves outgassing rates, as taught by Komiya.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Wegmann does not disclose that the collecting vessel and the condensation device are formed separately from one another, as recited in claim 2 (remarks, page 9). Applicant further argues that the condensation vessel 3 is both the recited condensation device because it is where the high-purity melt 21 is formed and the recited collecting vessel because it receives the high-purity melt 21 that is formed (remarks, page 9). Applicant argues Wegmann’s water-cooled flange 15 is not a condensation device (remarks, page 11). Applicant further argues that Wegmann's paragraph [0014] does state that condensation does occur above the level line 81 (remarks, pages 10-11).
In response, Applicant is arguing using a claim mapping that was not applied in the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 06/26/2025. As outlined in the Non-Final Rejection and in this Office action, the condensation vessel 3 of Wegmann reads on the claimed collecting vessel and the upper region of retort 11 reads on the claimed condensation device ([0014], [0020], [0030]). One of ordinary skill in the art understands a “condensation device” as any device that uses cooling to turn vapor into liquid. Wegmann teaches the upper region (11, Fig. 3) of the retort (1, Fig. 3, reads on the claimed chamber) is heated to a temperature above the boiling point of the magnesium, within the limits of the level lines (8 and 81, Fig. 3), and is then held constant, such that steam rises from the boiling magnesium-containing metal melt (2, Fig. 3, reads on the claimed starting material) in accordance with the arrows (91, Fig. 3) and fills the interior of the upper region of the retort, wherein it can also condense into liquid above the level line (81, Fig. 3, emphasis added) ([0014], [0030]). One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand the upper region of retort 11 as a condensation device since condensation occurs above line 81, as admitted by Applicant, from the cooling provided by water-cooled flange 15. Therefore, as seen in Fig. 3, upper region 11 which reads on the claimed condensation device is a separate component from condensation vessel 3 which reads on the claimed collecting vessel. The Examiner notes parts 33 and 34 of Fig. 3 are part of condensation vessel 3 and that the hatch marks are different in both components, denoting that they are separate units. Additionally, the Examiner notes the limitation “wherein the collecting vessel and the condensation device are formed separately from one another” (emphasis added) can also be interpreted as the collecting vessel and condensation device were manufactured separately (emphasis added) and does not exclude the collecting vessel and condensation device being joined into a single unit at the end of manufacturing, therefore reading on the claimed “formed separately from one another” even if the components were shown as a single unit.
Applicant further argues that the liquid that is formed above the level line 81 does not enter the condensation vessel 3 (alleged collecting vessel) but instead returns to the melt 2 as explicitly stated in paragraph [0014] (remarks, pages 10-11). Applicant further argues that Wegmann never states that this liquid enters the condensation vessel 3, and Wegmann explicitly states that it is steam that enters the condensation vessel 3 and condenses within the condensation vessel 3 in paragraph [0016] (remarks, page 11).
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., liquid enters the condensation vessel) 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, claim 1 recites “whereby the liquid condensate is formed” regarding the claimed “at least one condensation device”. Since Wegmann teaches a condensation device, as outlined in this Office action, that forms a liquid condensate, Wegmann reads on all the limitations of the instant claim. The claim as currently recited does not require the liquid condensate of the condensation device to enter the condensation vessel, as argued by Applicant.
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