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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/10/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention I drawn to a method of manufacturing, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/10/2025.
Response to Arguments
Regarding applicant’s arguments filed 4/8/2025 towards the drawing corrections. The drawings are objected to because they have multiple generic spots with the same numbers pointing to different areas. The examiner is unclear how to interpret the drawings especially figs. 1, 7, and 12. In the interest of compact prosecution the examiner added some further clarification in the rejection herein. The applicant is respectfully reminded to review the requirements found in 37CFR 1.84, specifically section (h)(5).
Applicant's arguments filed 7/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments towards the art of Linstrument not disclosing all the structure and process of the claims of the instant application. The examiner respectfully believes that the claims of the instant application are product by process claims and per MPEP 2113 reproduced below:
MPEP 2113- “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments towards Linstrument and Nashner not disclosing an oxide layer being transparent nor the glossiness of the layers.
The examiner respectfully argues that the applicant has not claimed what patently distinguishes the oxide layer of the instant application from the oxide layers of Linstrument and Nashner. Further, the applicant has not identified what the oxide layer of the instant application is transparent to see 112(b) below. The examiner respectfully understands that any oxide layer can be transparent to any particular wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum chosen. Applicant has not provided a special definition that limits transparency to 10nm thicknesses or less, and instead only indicated that color, not transparency, changes with thickness. Further, because applicant has not specifically claimed the type of oxide film used as part of the invention, the relationship to thickness and transparency is extremely broad.
The examiner respectfully argues that the applicant has not claimed what patently distinguishes the oxide layer of the instant application from the oxide layers of Linstrument and Nashner and since the applicant’s disclosed surface roughness and film thickness ranges in dependent claims 6 and 9 are taught by Linstrument in combination with Nashner, that the inherent property of glossiness is met because glossiness is known to be a function of surface roughness and film thicknesses.
Linstrument and Nashner essentially teach, in summation, that oxide layer thicknesses and surface finishes are known in the art to be dynamically variable to achieve a desired aesthetic look all of which is interpreted by the examiner read on the claims of the instant application.
For these reasons, the examiner respectfully believes that the art of Linstrument reads on the product limitations of the claims of the instant application and is the reason that the art of record still stands.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the receiving member, a circuit cover, an oscillating weight, a main plate, a back cover, a dial, a pointer, and a balance with hairspring of claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters in figs. 1, 7, and 12 are all used to designate a pattern or surface. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because, as a non-limiting example, reference character in figs. 1, 7, and 12 are all used to designate a pattern or surface, for example 14. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because figs. 1, 7 and 12 contain grayscale, show multiple embodiments in a single drawing, and are photographs and fig. 1 shows item 7 with on a grayscale background.
(b) Photographs.—
(1) Black and white. Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. For example, photographs or photomicrographs of: electrophoresis gels, blots (e.g., immunological, western, Southern, and northern), autoradiographs, cell cultures (stained and unstained), histological tissue cross sections (stained and unstained), animals, plants, in vivo imaging, thin layer chromatography plates, crystalline structures, and, in a design patent application, ornamental effects, are acceptable. If the subject matter of the application admits of illustration by a drawing, the examiner may require a drawing in place of the photograph. The photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent.
(2) Color photographs. Color photographs will be accepted in utility and design patent applications if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(1) of this section.
(h) Views. The drawing must contain as many views as necessary to show the invention. The views may be plan, elevation, section, or perspective views. Detail views of portions of elements, on a larger scale if necessary, may also be used. All views of the drawing must be grouped together and arranged on the sheet(s) without wasting space, preferably in an upright position, clearly separated from one another, and must not be included in the sheets containing the specifications, claims, or abstract. Views must not be connected by projection lines and must not contain center lines. Waveforms of electrical signals may be connected by dashed lines to show the relative timing of the waveforms.
(5) Modified forms. Modified forms of construction must be shown in separate views.
(m) Shading. The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Shading is used to indicate the surface or shape of spherical, cylindrical, and conical elements of an object. Flat parts may also be lightly shaded. Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but not for cross sections. See paragraph (h)(3) of this section. Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings. As a substitute for shading, heavy lines on the shade side of objects can be used except where they superimpose on each other or obscure reference characters. Light should come from the upper left corner at an angle of 45°. Surface delineations should preferably be shown by proper shading. Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color.
(p) Numbers, letters, and reference characters.
(1) Reference characters (numerals are preferred), sheet numbers, and view numbers must be plain and legible, and must not be used in association with brackets or inverted commas, or enclosed within outlines, e.g., encircled. They must be oriented in the same direction as the view so as to avoid having to rotate the sheet. Reference characters should be arranged to follow the profile of the object depicted.
(2) The English alphabet must be used for letters, except where another alphabet is customarily used, such as the Greek alphabet to indicate angles, wavelengths, and mathematical formulas.
(3) Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. They should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines. They should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct.
(4) The same part of an invention appearing in more than one view of the drawing must always be designated by the same reference character, and the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts.
(5) Reference characters not mentioned in the description shall not appear in the drawings. Reference characters mentioned in the description must appear in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5-6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding the recitation of “the oxide film is transparent” in claim 5 is unclear what the oxide film is transparent to or what the term "transparent" means since no explicit definition is found. Figure 13 appears to imply that a lack of color in the film means it is only transparent. However, just indicating a lack of color does not indicate that films having color are not transparent. The examiner would expect it to be transparent to a laser beam wavelength or light. Further, given the applicant has not disclosed what oxide is present in the invention of the instant application and has disclosed that the thickness of the oxide is what makes it transparent per par. 57 of the specification of the instant application, it is not possible to determine an oxide that is transparent at the thicknesses disclosed in the instant application.
Regarding the recitation of “the oxide film is transparent”, the examiner further is unclear which oxide film is transparent or if both surfaces have transparent oxide films and as a result, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 9, the recitation of “wherein a film thickness of the oxide film on the surface of the second processed surface is more than 0 nm and 10 nm or less” is unclear because the first surface is claimed to also have an oxide film. Claim 9 creates a range where the 2nd surface can be infinitely close to zero which would require the 1st surface to have no oxide film since the oxide film layer of the first surface has to be thinner than the oxide film on the 2nd surface. Therefore claim 9 is unclear what the actual range is.
Claims 6 and 8-12 are also rejected due to their dependence to one or more of the above rejected independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4,5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220317630 A1 Linstrument in view of US 20190299336 A1 Nashner.
Regarding claim 5, Linstrument teaches, except where struck through,
A timepiece component (par. 29) comprising:
a base material made of metal (par. 32 in summation teaches the surface to be treated to be of a lot of different materials including titanium which is disclosed in the specification of the instant application and meets the limitation of being made of metal);
a first processed surface that has a predetermined pattern, that has a surface roughness of a first surface roughness, and that is formed by irradiating the base material with a first laser having a pulse width of femtoseconds (claim 20 and par. 66 through 70 teach “In addition, the invention is not limited to the example illustrated. In particular, the surface structuring steps may be performed using a multitude of solutions, preferably remaining within the malleable layer (without the addition of material, for example using a technique of the PVD, CVD, etc. type). In order to do that, the following solutions may be used: [0067] the techniques aimed at lowering the roughness of the surface to which they are applied, such as polishing, or such as, under certain conditions, sand blasting, shot peening, microbead blasting, or such as, under certain conditions, the use of a laser, including femtosecond or nanosecond lasers; [0068] techniques aimed at increasing the roughness of the surface to which they are applied, such as, under certain conditions, sand blasting, shot peening, microbead blasting, or such as, under certain conditions, the use of a laser, including femtosecond or nanosecond lasers; [0069] techniques known as fine lines techniques, such as satin finishing, brushing, snailing, sunray brushing, Côtes de Genéve striped waves, which aim to create striations (which may be obtained in the traditional way or using a laser), these notably including: [0070] snailing, which is a decoration in the form of a spiral, generally performed on the barrel ratchet wheels, the oscillating weights, the barrels or else the barrel covers, but which can be envisioned on a dial. This decoration is obtained by means of a grinding wheel which is made to spin on the surface of the component, orienting it in such a way as to obtain spiral-shaped lines;” where it is obvious to use a predetermined pattern taught by Linstrument as disclosed and to use a femtosecond laser beam to produce a fine pattern);
and a second processed surface that has a surface roughness of a second surface roughness smaller than the first surface roughness (claim 20 and par. 81 teaches “As a preference, the second surface structuring forms a roughness less than or equal to the roughness of the first surface structuring and/or clips the peaks off all or part of the first surface structuring” where the examiner considers clipping the peaks of all part of the first surface structuring to reduce overall surface roughness), and that is formed by irradiating at least a part of the first processed surface with a second laser having a pulse width of femtoseconds or more (par. 86 teaches “According to another advantageous embodiment, the second surface structuring is able to lower the mean level of the surface treated by the second structuring while maintaining the initial profile formed by the first surface structuring. This approach, which is performed by a laser, notably a femtosecond laser, thus offers the advantage of maintaining a profile of an initial roughness, which may for example be recognized by the naked eye, while at the same time modifying this by means of a second surface structuring so that it can be differentiated from its initial form” where the second laser process has a pulse width of femtoseconds)
the oxide film is transparent (par. 88 teaches that the thickness of the oxide layer changes its color and claims 8, 9, and 20 teach that it is obvious to adjust an oxide layer to achieve a desired “different coloration and/or a different lightness and/or a different optical effect so that the zone treated by the second surface structuring step can be visually distinguishable from the zone treated by the first surface structuring without the second surface structuring”);
and the oxide film on the surface of the second processed surface is glossier than the oxide film on the surface of the first processed surface (par. 88 teaches that the thickness of the oxide layer changes its color and claims 8, 9, and 20 teach that it is obvious to adjust an oxide layer to achieve a desired “different coloration and/or a different lightness and/or a different optical effect so that the zone treated by the second surface structuring step can be visually distinguishable from the zone treated by the first surface structuring without the second surface structuring” it is therefore obvious to design the oxide layer to have different optical effects such as glossiness).
In an alternative embodiment, Linstrument teaches, wherein the first processed surface and the second processed surface have an oxide film on a surface thereof, and the oxide film on the surface of the second processed surface is thicker than the oxide film on the surface of the first processed surface (par. 56 teaches step E30 which non uniformly coats an area from a first and second step or alternatively uniformly coats said areas).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine or modify the embodiments in the Linstrument reference, such that , for the purpose of providing the advantage that “that the topography formed by the double surface structuring is not lost” (par. 56).
In the interest of promoting compact prosecution, in the alternative that Linstrument does not teach the first processed surface and the second processed surface have an oxide film on a surface thereof, and the oxide film on the surface of the second processed surface is thicker than the oxide film on the surface of the first processed surface.
Nashner teaches, the first processed surface and the second processed surface have an oxide film on a surface thereof, and the oxide film on the surface of the second processed surface is thicker than the oxide film on the surface of the first processed surface (par. 9 and 10 teach that it is obvious to change the thickness of an applied oxide layer to different processed surfaces as par. 9 teaches “ In embodiments, a pixel may display a color as a result of interference of light reflected from the metal oxide and the underlying metallic substrate. Typically the interference color displayed depends upon the thickness of the metal oxide. A metal oxide having a thickness too great to display interference colors may appear dark. When the metal oxide is very thin (or is not present), the pixel may appear bright or metallic. In embodiments, the metal oxide thickness of a given pixel may have a thickness or a thickness range configured to produce a desired hue or combination of hues, such as at a desired viewing angle.” While par. 10 teaches “ In an example, an electronic device housing comprises: a metallic substrate; an oxide layer formed on the metallic substrate and comprising a metal oxide, and an image defined, in part, by an array of pixels formed within the oxide layer. The array of pixels may comprise a first pixel having a first color defined, in part, by a first thickness of a first portion of the oxide layer, a second pixel having a second color different from the first color and defined, in part, by a second thickness of a second portion of the oxide layer, and a third pixel having a third color different from the first and second colors and defined, in part, by a third thickness of a third portion of the oxide layer”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Linstrument reference, such that the first processed surface and the second processed surface have an oxide film on a surface thereof, and the oxide film on the surface of the second processed surface is thicker than the oxide film on the surface of the first processed surface, as suggested and taught by Nashner, for the purpose of providing the advantage to achieve first, second, and third colors (par. 9 in summation).
Regarding claim 6, Linstrument teaches, wherein the second surface roughness is 0.1 μm or more and 0.3 μm or less (par. 25 teaches the surface roughness as “According to one embodiment, one surface structuring step forms a surface roughness preferably of between 0.05 μm and 4 μm, or even 0.05 μm and 3 μm, or even between 0.1 μm and 1.5 μm, or even between 0.05 μm and 0.1 μm. Note that the roughness can be measured from the surface finish parameters by applying standard ISO 25178, such as”; claims 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 8, Linstrument does not teach wherein the second laser is a nanosecond laser.
Nashner teaches, irradiating a housing for an electronic device with lasers to form colorized patterns (abstract, par. 45 and 46) and also teaches wherein the second laser is a nanosecond laser (par. 83 teaches “The first laser may be a femtosecond laser producing pulses having an effective pulse duration in the femtosecond range. The laser may produce a wavelength in the near infrared range (e.g., with a wavelength from about 1 μm to about 5 μm”, and par. 84 teaches “The second laser may be a nanosecond laser producing pulses having an effective pulse duration in the nanosecond range. The laser may produce a wavelength in the near infrared range, the visible range, or in the ultraviolet range”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Linstrument reference, such that wherein the second laser is a nanosecond laser, as suggested and taught by Nashner, for the purpose of providing the advantage that the markings are more durable and provide a distinctive appearance (par. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Linstrument teaches, wherein the timepiece component is any of a receiving member, a circuit cover, an oscillating weight, a main plate, a back cover, a dial, a pointer, and a balance with hairspring (par. 29 teaches “any surface of another horology component, of a wristwatch or of a timepiece movement, such as, for example and nonlimitingly, a bezel, blanks and movement supplies, notably covers, barrel drums or ratchet wheels”).
Regarding claim 11, Linstrument teaches, wherein a material of the base material is titanium, a titanium alloy, or stainless steel (as previously discussed in the rejection of claim 5, par. 32 teaches titanium).
Regarding claim 12, Linstrument teaches, A timepiece comprising the timepiece component according to claim 5 (claim 21; par. 91 teaches “The invention also relates to a timepiece, such as a watch, notably a wristwatch, comprising such a horology component” and the examiner respectfully points out that it has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220317630 A1 Linstrument in view of US 20190299336 A1 Nashner in view of US10649406B2 Noirot.
Regarding claim 9,
The primary combination teaches each claimed limitation, as applied in claim 5.
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the combination of Linstrument and Nashner does not teach: wherein a film thickness of the oxide film on the surface of the second processed surface is more than 0 nm and 10 nm or less.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation such as providing thinness to provide dielectric resistance against high voltages.
Specifically, Noirot teaches steps E3 and E4 which are depositions of a protective/oxide layer onto a metal substrate (column 2 lines 61 through 67 and column 1 lines 1 through 3 and column 4 lines 22 through 28) and a film thickness of the oxide film on the surface of the second processed surface is more than 0 nm and 10 nm or less (column 6 lines 40 through 43 and column 7 lines 6 through 8 teach a layer deposited that is in the range of 0.2 to 1um and that it is smoothed out to be about 1um which is disclosed in the instant application and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art at the time of the invention was made to determine a thickness to provide enough thickness to achieve a protective or aesthetic layer since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ (CCPA 1980). Noirot teaches an obvious thickness design choice and that it is known when utilizing a protective or aesthetic layer set forth in Linstrument and Nashner it is known to have the sheet be between more than 0 nm and 10 nm or less. The range disclosed in the instant application of more than 0 nm and 10 nm or less falls within the range set forth in Noirot.
Therefore, the use of a film thickness of the oxide film on the surface of the second processed surface is more than 0 nm and 10 nm or less would have been recognized as predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM M ECKARDT whose telephone number is (313)446-6609. The examiner can normally be reached 6 a.m to 2:00 p.m EST Monday to Friday.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
ADAM MICHAEL. ECKARDT
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 3761
/ADAM M ECKARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761