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 .
The amendment filed 10/9/2025 has been entered. Claims 4, 7-8, 10, 15-16, and 18-20 have been canceled. New claims 21-23 have been added. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9, 11-14, 17, and 21-23 are pending in the application. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-2, 6, and new claim 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (The effect of residual stress on adhesion of silicon-containing diamond-like carbon coatings), for generally the reasons recited in the prior office action (incorporated herein by reference) and restated below with respect to the amended/new claims, wherein the Examiner again notes that Wu specifically discloses that the SiDLC coating is deposited at substrate temperatures ranging from 100°C to 400°C, reading upon the claimed “wherein the SiDLC coating layer is formed at a temperature of 100 °C to 400 °C” as in instant claim 1, with specific discussions by Wu on the effect of the temperature on the properties of the deposited films.
As discussed in the prior office action, Wu discloses silicon-containing DLC films deposited by r.f. plasma CVD on three different substrates - silicon wafer, Corning 7059 glass (reading upon the claimed “base material comprises ceramic glass” of instant claim 2), and Ti-6Al-4V alloy, with a substrate temperature in the range of 100-400°C (reading upon the claimed “formed at a temperature of 100 °C to 400 °C” as in instant claim 1 although the Examiner again notes that the temperature range is a process limitation in the product-by-process claim that alone does not differentiate the claimed invention from the invention disclosed by Wu), and the deposited Si-DLC films have a coating film thickness of 2.0 ± 0.1 µm falling within the claimed thickness range of instant claim 1 and comprise Si in a content falling within the claimed weight percentage ranges as recited in instant claims 1 and 21, carbon (C), and other inevitable impurities; wherein the coating hardness or Vickers hardness of the coating films of the study had a value between 1200 and 1800 kg/mm2 falling within the claimed 1000 Hv to 2000 Hv of instant claim 1 (given that Hv is measured in kg/mm2); and although Wu does not specifically disclose a chrominance value as instantly claimed, given that the coating disclosed by Wu comprises the same components as in the claimed invention and is produced by essentially the same method as the instant invention including in a temperature range as claimed, the Examiner takes the position that the coating film of Wu would inherently exhibit a chrominance value as instantly claimed when measured under the same conditions as in the claimed invention (Entire document, particularly Abstract, Introduction, Sections 1-3.1 and 3.3). Hence, absent any evidence to the contrary, the Examiner maintains her position that Wu anticipates instant claims 1-2 and 21 given that the Si-DLC coated substrates disclosed by Wu are capable of being utilized as an exterior material for a cooking appliance.
With respect to instant claim 6, although Wu does not specifically disclose a friction coefficient as instantly claimed, given again that the coating disclosed by Wu comprises the same components as in the claimed invention and is produced by essentially the same method as the instant invention, the Examiner maintains her position that the coating film of Wu would inherently exhibit a friction coefficient as instantly claimed when measured under the same conditions as in the claimed invention (or some arbitrary conditions given that friction properties are system dependent and not just dependent upon the material to be measured).
Claims 1, 5-6, 9, 11-12, and new claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (Effects of silicon doping on low-friction and high-hardness diamond-like carbon coating via filtered cathodic vacuum arc deposition) for generally the reasons recited in the prior office action (incorporated herein by reference) and restated below with respect to the amended/new claims, wherein the Examiner again notes that Kim specifically discloses that during deposition, the temperature inside the deposition chamber was maintained at 120°C reading upon the claimed “wherein the SiDLC coating layer is formed at a temperature of 100 °C to 400 °C” of instant claim 1, and similarly the claimed “forming, at a temperature of 100°C to 400 °C” as in instant claim 9.
As discussed in the prior office action, Kim discloses a study on the low-friction and high-hardness properties of silicon (Si)-doped diamond-like carbon (DLC) coatings formed on a substrate using a hybrid coating system comprising a linear ion source (LIS), unbalanced magnetron (UBM) sputter, and filtered cathodic vacuum arc (FCVA) deposition, wherein the substrate is first ground and polished, then ultrasonically cleaned with deionized water, rinsed with isopropyl alcohol, and dried at 100°C to eliminate moisture prior to the coating process (Entire document, particularly Abstract, Experimental: Coating Preparation). Kim discloses that the “coating process is typically divided into three steps: (1) surface etching using LIS, (2) interlayer deposition using UBM, and (3) [DLC] coating using FCVA” (with step (1) reading upon the claimed “etching a surface of a base material by a linear ion source process” and step 3) reading upon the claimed “forming…a Silicon-Diamond like carbon (SiDLC) coating layer”), but since the substrate used in the study exhibited sufficient adhesion with the coating at the interface, an interlayer was not used, and instead the Si-doped DLC coating was applied directly to the etched substrate to a thickness of ~ 1 µm utilizing the hybrid physical vapor deposition process including LIS (as in instant claims 9 and 11-12) wherein during deposition, the temperature inside the chamber was maintained at 120°C as in instant claims 1 and 9 (reading upon the claimed “wherein the SiDLC coating layer is formed at a temperature of 100 °C to 400 °C” of instant claim 1, and similarly the claimed “forming, at a temperature of 100°C to 400 °C” as in instant claim 9); with the Si content of the DLC coating varied from 0 to ~ 20 at.% to study the effects of the Si content on properties of the resulting Si-doped DLC coating, including hardness and friction coefficient, with the Si-doped DLC coating comprising Si, carbon (C), and other inevitable impurities, and given the Si, C, and oxygen (O) contents shown in Fig. 2, Kim discloses a content of Si falling within the claimed weight percent range as recited in instant claims 1, 9, and 21-22 (Experimental: Coating preparation; Results and discussion: Characterization of Si-doped DLC films; also reading upon the claimed “an adhesive force between the etched base material and the SiDLC coating layer is increased as a result of the weight percent of silicon and the linear ion source process” as in instant claim 9).
Kim also discloses a friction coefficient of the Si-doped DLC films falling within the claimed range as recited in instant claim 6 (Fig. 6), and although Kim discloses that the Si-doped coating film having a Si fraction of ~ 17at% exhibited the lowest nanohardness of ~ 20 GPa (e.g. ~2000 kg/mm2 similar to the claimed Vickers hardness of 2000 Hv given that Hv is measured in kg/mm2) as shown in Fig. 5(c), when measured using a nanoindenter with a maximum indention depth of ~ 100nm, Kim does not specifically disclose the Vickers hardness of the Si-doped DLC coatings and the chrominance value as thereof as recited in instant claims 1 and 9, nor a vertical force as recited in instant claim 5. However, given again that the Si-doped DLC film disclosed by Kim comprises the same elements as in the claimed invention including Si in a content as instantly claimed, and is formed by the same method as in the instantly claimed invention including an etching step by LIS and a PVD coating process at a temperature falling within the claimed range wherein the PVD process comprises an LIS method, the Examiner maintains her position that the Si-doped DLC coating film disclosed by Kim would inherently exhibit properties as instantly claimed when measured under some arbitrary measurement conditions, or more particularly, when measured under the same measurement conditions as in the instant invention. Hence, absent any evidence to the contrary, and given that the coated substrate disclosed by Kim is capable of being utilized as a cooking appliance exterior material, the Examiner maintains her position that Kim anticipates instant claims 1, 5-6, 9, and 11-12, as well as new claims 21-22.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9, 11-14, 17, and new 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jördens (W2013/110491A2, please refer to the attached machine translation for the below cited sections) in view of Kim (discussed in detail above and incorporated herein by reference).
Jördens teaches a component (12) for a household appliance (10), a household appliance (10) such as a glass-ceramic cooktop (e.g. a cooking appliance as in instant claims 1, 9, and 17) with such a component (12), and a method for manufacturing such a component (12) for a household appliance (10), wherein the household appliance (10) is made of steel, glass, glass-ceramic (as in instant claims 2 and 13), plastic and the like, and is equipped with an amorphous carbon layer(s) (13) deposited thereon as shown in Figs. 1-3, to provide a component surface with improved physical and chemical properties such as dirt-repellent, fingerprint-repellent, wear-resistant, easy to clean, scratch-resistant, temperature-stable, chemically inert under normal operating conditions of the household appliance(s), and corrosion-inhibiting properties, e.g. for steel and the like (Abstract, Paragraphs 0001-0003, 0007, 0009, 0012-0015, 0017, 0059-0070, Figs 1-3, reading upon the claimed “exterior material for a cooking appliance”, a “cooking appliance exterior material”, and a “cooking appliance, comprising a cooking appliance body; and an exterior material on an outer side of the cooking appliance body” limitations of instant claims 1, 9, and 17, respectively). Jördens teaches that the amorphous carbon layer(s) may be diamond-like amorphous carbon layers predominantly consisting of sp3 hybridized carbon bonds, and which are characterized in particular by high electrical resistance, extreme hardness and optical transparency (Paragraphs 0026-0030). Jördens teaches that the amorphous carbon layers may be hydrogen-free, amorphous, diamond-like carbon layers or “ta-C” layers, or may be hydrogen-containing, amorphous, diamond-like carbon layers or “ta-C:H” layers, such as with a molar hydrogen content of 20%-80%, wherein a higher molar hydrogen content, e.g. approximately 60% to 80% generally lead to a more graphite-like (sp2) structure while a lower hydrogen content of at most 30% generally leads to a more diamond-like structure of the amorphous carbon layer; and wherein the exact structure of the amorphous carbon layer depends fundamentally on the specific manufacturing conditions used (Paragraphs 0031-0033).
Jördens also teaches that the amorphous carbon layers can include metal(s), e.g. “a-C:Me/a-C:H:Me/ta-C:Me/ta-C:H:Me” depending on their design, generally possessing particularly high wear resistance, low coefficients of friction, and an additionally improved adhesion of the coating to certain materials, with the type of metal and its content significantly affecting the coating; and that alternatively or additionally, amorphous carbon layers can also be strongly modified by doping with elements, e.g. “a-C:X/a-C:H:X/ta-C:X/ta-C:H:X” depending on their specific design with X representing the doping element used, such as Si, O, N, F and B; wherein Si, for example, generally increases temperature resistance of the coating in oxygen-containing environments, while doping with silicon and oxygen can reduce the surface tension to values on the order of polytetrafluoroethylene, and wherein highly transparent and extremely scratch-resistant layer can be produced by doping (Paragraphs 0034-0038). Jördens teaches that further advantages arise from the fact that the amorphous carbon layer has a thickness of at least 5 nm and/or at most 2000 nm (i.e. 2 µm), in particular, layer thicknesses of 1000 nm (i.e. 1 µm), 1500 nm (i.e. 1.5 µm), 2000 nm (i.e. 2 µm), or as recited in Paragraph 0042 (reading upon the claimed thickness range of 1 µm to 4 µm of instant claims 1, 9, and 17); and that due to the low thickness, the amorphous carbon layer can be applied to the component with very little energy input, such as by arc plasma deposition, so that components made of temperature-sensitive materials such as plastic or tempered glass, which can be subject to a loss of prestressing of the glass when coated with lacquers to be baked at temperatures of between 350°C and 500°C, can be easily coated (Paragraphs 0010-0011, and 0018-0023), thereby clearly teaching and/or suggesting that the amorphous carbon layer can be applied or formed at a temperature of less than 350°C thereby rendering the claimed 100°C to 400°C temperature range of instant claims 1, 9, and 17 obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Jördens further teaches that the properties of the amorphous carbon layers or coatings can be specifically modified by process parameters such as precursor type and concentration, temperature, pressure, plasma torch geometry, choice of additional process gases, oxygen content, flow rate, distance to the coated component, excitation energy, etc., to achieve certain desired properties, such as hardness, low friction coefficient, scratch resistance, and temperature stability as noted above, for the entire surface of a particular household appliance and/or for a particular area or zone of the surface, such as by providing more temperature-stable amorphous carbon layers for cooking zones (14) than component (12) as shown in Fig. 3; and although Jördens broadly teaches that a suitable carbon-based material to be applied to the surface of the component to be coated using a plasma jet at atmospheric pressure dissociates due to the “high temperature” in the plasma, Jördens does not specifically teach that the DLC coating layer, which may be doped with Si as taught by Jördens thereby reading upon and/or rendering obvious the claimed “Silicon-Diamond like carbon (SiDLC) coating layer” on the component as the claimed “base material”, is specifically formed at a temperature 100°C to 400°C as instantly claimed, with a content of Si of 1 to 50wt% based on a total weight of the coating layer, a chrominance value (which is a measure of heat resistance of the SiDLC coating layer) of 1.0 or less, and a Vickers hardness of 1000 Hv to 2000 Hv as instantly claimed (Paragraphs 0021, 0024, 0048-0049, and 0066-0070).
However, Kim (discussed in detail above and incorporated herein by reference) teaches a method of producing a tetrahedral amorphous carbon (ta-C) or DLC coating on a substrate (as in Jördens) by a hybrid plasma coating system comprising a linear ion source (LIS) method, unbalanced magnetron (UBM) sputter, and filtered cathodic vacuum arc (FCVA) deposition with a substrate etching step using LIS and a deposition temperature of 120°C, particularly as in instant claims 1, 9, 10-12, and 17 (as discussed in detail above), wherein Kim specifically investigates the effect of Si doping content on the hardness and friction properties of the resulting Si-doped DLC coating, particularly the friction properties with respect to steel (e.g. a common material utilized for cooking vessels; Entire document, particularly pp. 1-2, Experimental, and Results and discussion). Kim teaches that it is known in the art that incorporation of a dopant, such as Si, into the DLC coating is known to enhance adhesion of the coating to a substrate (as in instant claim 9), and also known to affect the tribological properties of the coating (pp. 1-2). Kim specifically varies the content of Si in the DLC coating from 0 to ~20at% (reading upon the claimed Si weight percentage ranges of instant claims 1, 9, 17, and 21-23) to study the effects thereof, with the DLC coating film having a thickness of ~ 1 µm (as in Jördens) and the investigated properties including hardness and friction as noted above, as well as static water contact angle (e.g. hydrophilicity/hydrophobicity) and wear rate (Results and discussion). Kim teaches that a low-friction DLC coating can be produced by the Si doping method, wherein when the Si fraction was less than ~7at%, the coefficient of friction showed no obvious change as shown in Fig. 6a, but significantly decreased when the Si fraction was greater than ~ 8 at% as shown in Fig. 6b, with all of the friction coefficient values of the tested Si contents falling within the claimed range of 0.01 to 0.2 as in instant claim 6; while increasing the Si content from 0 to 17at% increased the sp2 (C-H) ratio as shown in Fig. 5(b) and decreased the surface nanohardness to about 20 GPa (e.g. ~2000 kg/mm2 similar to the claimed Vickers hardness of 2000 Hv given that Hv is measured in kg/mm2) as shown in Fig. 5(c), although above 17at%, the sp2 ratio saturated around 0.9 and the Si-C ratio decreased slightly with a slight increase in hardness as shown in Figs. 5(a)-(c) (Results and discussion).
More specifically, Kim teaches that “increasing sp2 ratio could project a decrease in mechanical properties, particularly hardness” and that in “many previous studies on Si-doped DLC coatings, the addition of dopants could decrease the hardness and modulus because interstitial atoms or molecules destroyed the substantial and stable microstructures of coated layers42” although “[c]onversely, the hardness increased after doping when the original hardness of the coated layer was very low43” but that in “most cases, hardness could not exceed ~ 20 GPa because doping was performed on hydrogenated amorphous carbon (a-C:H) and/or hydrogen-free carbon with a relatively high sp2 ratio (a-C)” (paragraph bridging pages 5-6). Kim teaches that “[i]n case of Si doping on DLC coating using TMS gas, the hardness remained above 20 GPa, although the fraction of sp2 critically increased” and that a “previous study revealed that the hardness of Si-doped DLC could be maintained or slightly increased with an increase in the Si fraction46 if the fraction of hydrogen was lowered with increasing Si fraction” (Results and discussion). Kim teaches that “Si doping in this study was performed using the TMS gas, implying that Si doping could be achieved in the form of Si- and Si-CH3” and that the “fraction of hydrogen in the coating could be increased by increasing the TMS gas flow rate during the FCVA process; therefore, increasing the Si fraction clearly decreased the hardness of the coating” and “[t]hus, in this study, the structure of the Si-doped DLC was transformed from ta-C into a-C:Si:H rather than ta-C:Si” with the wear rate increasing with a decrease in the hardness of the coated surface (paragraph bridging pages 5-6). Kim specifically teaches that based upon the various tests, “~17 at.% of Si was concluded to be the optimum Si doping level to achieve low friction and long-term durability” of the Si-DLC coating wherein the Si doping level or fraction can be controlled by varying the TMS gas flow rate during the FCVA deposition process (Page 10; Conclusions).
Hence, given that Jördens similarly teaches that the amorphous carbon coating layers may be ta-C or ta-C:H layers with a thickness as instantly claimed, and more particularly may be doped to improve adhesion of the coating to the substrate and/or to further modify properties of the coating layer such as hardness, friction properties, temperature resistance, wear resistance and/or scratch resistance as discussed in detail above, e.g. as in Kim, with the amorphous carbon layers being “a-C:X/a-C:H:X/ta-C:X/ta-C:H:X” depending on their specific design and doping element X, with Jördens specifically teaching that doping with Si generally increases temperature/heat resistance of the coating in oxygen-containing environments, wherein it is again noted that the claimed “chrominance value” is a measure of the heat resistance of the DLC coating, and Kim specifically teaching that doping with Si decreases the friction coefficient and increases wear resistance with a decrease in hardness in comparison to pure ta-C coatings with examples having a friction coefficient and hardness reading upon and/or rendering obvious the claimed values, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to utilize the deposition process taught by Kim, including a substrate etching step using LIS and a deposition temperature of 120°C as in the instantly claimed invention, to produce the SiDLC coating layer(s) in the invention taught by Jördens, utilizing routine experimentation to determine the optimum processing conditions such as feed rate to provide the desired properties for a particular household appliance end use of the amorphous carbon coated or Si-doped amorphous carbon coated component(s) in the invention taught by Jördens in view of Kim, including hardness, temperature resistance (e.g. as determined by “chrominance value”), scratch resistance, and friction coefficient, wherein properties similar to those as taught by Kim would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, and thus, absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the Examiner takes the position that the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1-2, 5-6, 9, 11-13, 17, and 21-23 would have been obvious over the teachings of Jördens in view of Kim.
With respect to instant claims 3 and 14, although Jördens does not specifically teach a thickness for the glass ceramic substrate as instantly claimed, given that glass ceramic thickness is a known result-effective variable affecting the mechanical strength of the substrate, absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to determine the optimum thickness based upon the intended end use of the glass ceramic component taught by Jördens, and given that thicknesses on the same order of magnitude are typical in the art, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 3 and 14 would have been obvious over Jördens in view of Kim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/9/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive and/or moot in view of the additional remarks above with respect to the maintained anticipation rejections over Wu and Kim (individually), and/or the new grounds of rejection presented above. With respect to Wu, the Applicant argues on page 10 of the response (see first paragraph) that the office action relies on an inherency argument in the rejection of the claimed chrominance value and that the “Applicant found that the claimed chrominance resulted when their SiDLC coating was ‘formed at a temperature of 100 °C to 400 °C’. In other words, the claimed attribute may at least be a result of the process by which the product was manufactured. Such Product-by-Process claims are proper, e.g., see MPEP 2173.05(p) and should be given patentable weight. Further, the attribute of chrominance is measurable, thereby informing the public of the metes and bounds of the claims” (emphasis added). However, given that Wu specifically discloses that the SiDLC coating is deposited at substrate temperatures ranging from 100°C to 400°C and thus “the SiDLC coating layer is formed at a temperature of 100 °C to 400 °C” as in the claimed invention, Applicant’s arguments over Wu are not persuasive and absent any evidence to the contrary, the Examiner maintains her position that Wu anticipates instant claims 1-2, 6, and 21.
With respect to Kim, the Applicant similarly argues that the office action relies upon inherency for the claimed attributes of chrominance and Vickers hardness, and that the “Applicant found that the claimed chrominance and Vickers hardness resulted when their SiDLC coating was ‘formed at a temperature of 100 °C to 400 °C’. In other words, the claimed attributes may at least be a result of the process by which the product was manufactured. Such Product-by-Process claims are proper, e.g., see MPEP 2173.05(p) and should be given patentable weight. Further, the attributes of chrominance and Vickers hardness are measurable, thereby informing the public of the metes and bounds of the claims” (emphasis added, see second full paragraph on page 10 of the response). However, given that Kim specifically discloses that during deposition, the temperature inside the deposition chamber was maintained at 120°C and thus the SiDLC coating layer of Kim is “formed at a temperature of 100 °C to 400 °C” as in the claimed invention, Applicant’s arguments over Kim are not persuasive and absent any evidence to the contrary, the Examiner maintains her position that Kim anticipates instant claims 1, 5-6, 9, 11-12, and 21-22.
Applicant’s arguments over Mori, Shimizu, and Carre on pages 9-11 are moot given that the rejections based upon these references have been withdrawn by the Examiner in light of Applicant’s claim amendments and arguments. Further, in terms of Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-11 with respect to alleged unexpected results as may be applied to the new grounds of rejection presented above over Jördens in view of Kim, the Examiner notes that the data and results relied upon by the Applicant are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention and/or are inconclusive in terms of any clear showing of unexpected results, particularly with respect to the claimed invention over the teachings of Jördens in view of Kim, given that the only inventive data points are at 10wt%, 15wt%, and 30wt% Si, for thicknesses of 1.5, 2.2, and 3.0 µm, respectively, at manufacturing process temperatures of 100°C, 200°C, and 300°C, respectively; thus no inventive examples are at and/or near the claimed endpoints of 1wt% and 50wt% Si for the independent claims, nor at and/or near the claimed endpoints of 1 µm and 4 µm thickness (with no two inventive examples produced with a common Si content, thickness, or temperature parameter); while comparative examples with respect to the Si content are at 0wt% and 55wt% (at 200°C), and with respect to the thickness being the only parameter outside of the claimed ranges at 0.95 µm with no examples above 4 µm, and the only comparative SiDLC example (i.e. a non-zero content of Si in the DLC coating) formed at a temperature outside of the claimed temperature range is produced at temperature of 25°C, substantially lower than the claimed 100°C lower endpoint, with no SiDLC examples produced at a temperature of higher than 400°C. Further, with respect to comparing any of the examples in order to derive any type of conclusion(s) therefrom, it is noted that aside from comparing Embodiment 1 to Comparative Example 5 wherein the thickness changes from 2.2 µm to 0.95 µm for 15wt% Si at 200°C and comparing Embodiment 1 to Comparative Example 7 wherein the content of Si changes from 15wt% to 55wt% at a temperature of 200°C and thickness of 2.2 µm, no two of the other examples can be directly compared for a particular parameter given that more than one parameter changes therebetween. Thus, Applicant’s arguments, particularly as on pages 10-11 of the response, if applied to the above rejection over Jördens in view of Kim would not be persuasive.
Any rejection or objection from the prior office action not restated above has been withdrawn by the Examiner in light of Applicant’s claim amendments and arguments filed 10/9/2025.
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 MONIQUE R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays from 10:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/MONIQUE R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights