DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 11/11/2025, claims 1-15, 19, 21, and 23-24 are pending. Claim 24 is newly added. Claim 22 is cancel. Claims 1 and 21 are currently amended. Claims 1-15, 19, 21, and 23-24 are considered in the current Office 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 .
Status of Previous Objections/Rejections
Previous 35 USC 103 rejections of claims have been maintained based on the Applicant’s amendment. See Response to Argument below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 08/22/2022 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication, copy of Diode Area Melting Single-Layer Parametric Analysis of 316L Stainless Steel Powder was not found, or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner wishes to point out to applicant that claims directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under such conditions. The material worked upon or the process of using the apparatus is viewed as recitation of intended use and is given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (Please see MPEP 2112.01 and 2114-2115 for further details).
Claim Objections
Claims 23-24 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 23-24 are depended upon a canceled claim 22. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting as both claims 23-24 are depended upon claim 21.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2014/0271328 (“Burris et al” hereinafter Burris), US2022/0009030 (“Von Dadelszen et al” hereinafter von Dadelszen) and US2022/0194004 (Mathea).
Regarding Claim 1, Burris teaches an irradiation device for additively manufacturing three- dimensional objects (abstract), the irradiation device (Figure 8) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
577
601
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
520
488
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a beam generation device (see annotated Figure 8) comprising a plurality of laser diode arrays (see annotated Figure 9), wherein respective ones of the plurality of laser diode arrays comprise a plurality of diode emitters respectively configured to emit an energy beam (see annotated Figure 9 and [0071]);
a plurality of diode array groups (see annotated Figure 9), the plurality of diode array groups respectively comprising at least some of the plurality of laser diode arrays (see annotated Figure 9); and
a plurality of diode array sets, the plurality of diode array sets respectively comprising at least some of the plurality of diode array groups (see annotated Figure 9);
wherein the plurality of diode array sets comprises a first diode array set and a second diode array set (See annotated Figure 9), wherein a corresponding one of the plurality of laser diode arrays belonging to the first diode array set is configured to exhibit one or more irradiation parameters that differs from a corresponding one of the plurality of laser diode arrays belonging to the second diode array set ([0069], processor control multiple laser diodes independently to simultaneously adjust a power density of a first energy beam to achieve a target preheat temperature, a power density of a second energy beam to achieve a target melt temperature, and a power density of a third energy beam to achieve a target anneal temperature (or target heat transfer rate out of an annealing zone)), the one or more irradiation parameters comprising: beam power ([0069]), beam intensity, intensity profile, wavelength, spot size, or spot shape, wherein the first diode array set is configured to provide pre-heating (Figure 9 and [0069], processor control a power density of a first energy beam to achieve a target preheat temperature), and wherein the second diode array set is configured to provide lasing (Figure 9 and [0069], processor control a power density of a second energy beam to achieve a target melt temperature),
wherein the plurality of diode array sets is arranged longitudinally adjacent to one another and separated from one another by a set separation distance (see annotate Figure 9); and wherein the set separation distance is larger than the group separation distance (see annotated Figure 9, the set separation distance is greater than the group separation distance. Since group separation distance is not definite by the instant application. The Examiner is interpreting the group separation distance as 0.).
Burris fails to explicitly teach wherein the diode emitters are spaced apart by a diode pitch of about 50 micrometers to 100 micrometers. However, as the size and spacing of the laser sources are variables that can be modified by adjusting the diode pitch of the diode emitters, with said as the size of the laser source increases and the spacing of the laser source decreases, the diode pitch increases, as evidenced by von Dadelszen ([0061]), the precise diode pitch would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed diode pitch cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the diode pitch in the apparatus of Burris to obtain desired balance between the size and spacing of the laser source (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
PNG
media_image3.png
223
533
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Burris fails to teach wherein the plurality of laser diode arrays are longitudinally offset relative to one another; wherein the plurality of laser diode arrays is laterally offset relative to one another; wherein the plurality of laser diode arrays respectively emit a plurality of energy beams, wherein the plurality of energy beams provide a corresponding plurality of beam spots incident upon a build array defined by a powder bed disposed below the irradiation device, and wherein at least some of the beams spots incident upon the powder bed are longitudinally offset from one another in an alternating pattern or sequence.
However, von Dadelszen discloses wherein the plurality of laser diode arrays are longitudinally offset relative to one another (see annotated Figure 3G); wherein the plurality of laser diode arrays is laterally offset relative to one another (see annotated Figure 3G); wherein the plurality of laser diode arrays respectively emit a plurality of energy beams (Figure 3G, the plurality of laser arrays each comprises a laser source that emits laser beams), wherein the plurality of energy beams provide a corresponding plurality of beam spots incident upon a build array defined by a powder bed disposed below the irradiation device ([0004]), and wherein at least some of the beams spots incident upon the powder bed are longitudinally offset from one another in an alternating pattern or sequence (Figure 3G, the plurality of laser arrays is longitudinally offset relative to one another by an array offset distance, Sy, [0068], One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is known in the art that if the laser arrays are offset from each other, the beam spots incident upon the powder bed, generated by these laser arrays, must also offset from each other which formed an alternating pattern or sequence).
Burris and von Dadelszen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of producing a 3D object using an emitter array configured to produce a plurality of laser spots on the build surface. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the arrangements of the plurality of laser diode array as taught by Burris such that it discloses all of the above discussed limitations as taught by von Dadelszen because the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known way to arrange the plurality of laser beams ([0067]). See MPEP 2143.
The modified Burris fails to teach wherein the plurality of diode array groups are arranged longitudinally adjacent to one another and separated from one another by a group separation distance; wherein respective ones of the plurality diode arrays corresponding to the respective ones of the plurality of laser diode arrays belonging to a respective one of the plurality of diode array groups are longitudinally adjacent to one another and separated from one another by a row separation distance, wherein the group separation distance is larger than the row separation distance.
However, Mathea discloses an emitter array 11 comprises a plurality of emitter array 11A, 11B, 11C, 11D having multiple radiation emitters 12 that are structured as light-emitting diodes. For bundling or focusing of the radiation 32 emitted by the individual emitters 12, optics not shown in any detail in the drawing are arranged in the beam path of the emitters 12, in each instance ([0084]). Mathea further teaches wherein the plurality of diode array groups are arranged longitudinally adjacent to one another and separated from one another by a group separation distance (Mathea, see annotated Figure 15); wherein respective ones of the plurality diode arrays corresponding to the respective ones of the plurality of laser diode arrays belonging to a respective one of the plurality of diode array groups are longitudinally adjacent to one another and separated from one another by a row separation distance (Figure 15), wherein the group separation distance is larger than the row separation distance (Figure 15).
Burris and Mathea are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of producing a 3D object using an emitter array configured to produce a plurality of beam spots on the build surface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the arrangements of the plurality of laser diode groups as taught by the modified Burris such that it teaches all of the above limitations as taught by Mathea because the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known way to arrange the plurality of laser beams ([0083]).
PNG
media_image4.png
999
362
media_image4.png
Greyscale
MPEP 2143.
Regarding Claim 2, the modified Burris teaches the irradiation device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of laser diode arrays is longitudinally offset relative to one another (von Dadelszen, see annotated Figure 3G above) by an array offset distance determined relative to an optical axis of the respective ones of the plurality of laser diode arrays (see annotated Figure 3G above, the plurality of laser diode arrays is longitudinally offset by a distance of Sy [0068]).
Regarding Claim 3, the modified Burris teaches irradiation device of claim 1, wherein respective ones of the plurality of energy beams are emitted from corresponding ones of the plurality of diode emitters (von Dadelszen, Figure 3G, the plurality of laser arrays each comprises a laser source that emits laser beams); wherein the plurality of beam spots are arranged in a pattern or sequence such that beams spots that become incident upon laterally adjacent build points of the build array are longitudinally offset from one another ([0005] and [0060] and Figure 2, the cross section of 3D- 3D, taken at location after the laser beam exit the optics assemblies, may additionally be representative of the laser beam spot pattern on a build surface 102).
Regarding Claim 4, the modified Burris teaches the irradiation device of claim 3, wherein the energy beams are spaced apart by a beam pitch that is less than the diode pitch (von Dadelszen, Figure 3C represents the cross-sectional size and spacing of laser beams at cross section 3B- 3B, which is equivalent to the size and spacing of the laser emitter; thus, Sc is equivalent to diode pitch. Figure 3D represents the cross-sectional size and spacing of laser beams at cross section 3D- 3D, which is equivalent to the size and spacing of the emitted laser beam upon a surface; thus, Sd is equivalent to beam pitch. Von Dadelszen further discloses in some embodiments SD <SC which means the beam pitch is less than the diode pitch).
Regarding Claim 5, the modified Burris teaches the irradiation device of claim 3, wherein plurality of energy beams provide a linear scan field comprising a first plurality of beam spots laterally spaced apart from one another followed by a second plurality of beam spots laterally spaced apart from one another (von Dadelszen, Figure 4 and [0067], linear array of laser beams may include a plurality of laser beams arrange collinearly and spaced a distance S apart and moves along the rails 168 which implied that the energy beams are capable of being used as intended as discussed above and meets all of the structural limitations as claimed. See MPEP 2114) ; wherein the first plurality of beam spots and the second plurality of beam spots are longitudinally offset from one another with reference to a longitudinal axis of the build array (Figure 3G, the plurality of laser arrays are longitudinally offset relative to one another by an array offset distance, Sy, [0068], which implied that the beam spots radiated by the laser arrays are longitudinally off in an alternating pattern or sequence as well), and wherein the first plurality of beam spots and the second plurality of beam spots are laterally offset from one another with reference to a transverse axis of the build array (Figure 3G, the plurality of laser arrays are laterally offset relative to one another by an array offset distance, Sy, [0068], which implied that the beam spots radiated by the laser arrays are longitudinally off in an alternating pattern or sequence as well).
Regarding Claim 6, the modified Burris teaches the irradiation device of claim 3, wherein a first one of the plurality of laser diode arrays is configured to emit a first plurality of energy beams, and a second one of the plurality of laser diode arrays is configured to emit a second plurality of energy beams (von Dadelszen, Figure 3G and [0068]), wherein respective ones of the first plurality of energy beams are laterally offset from respective ones of the second plurality of energy beams by a beam offset distance determined with reference to a transverse axis of the build array (Figure 3G, the plurality of laser arrays are laterally offset relative to one another by an array offset distance, Sx, [0068]).
Regarding Claim 7, the modified Burris teaches the irradiation device of claim 6, wherein the first plurality of energy beams provide a first plurality of beam spots that become incident upon and propagate across the build array as a first row and wherein the second plurality of energy beams provide a second plurality of beam spots that become incident upon and propagate across the build array as a second row (von Dadelszen, Figure 3G and [0068], the plurality of laser arrays are laterally offset relative to one another by an array offset distance, Sx. Thus, it is implied that the beams are laterally offset from each other and the emitter is capable of being used as intended as discussed above and meets all of the structural limitations as claimed. See MPEP 2114).
Regarding Claim 8, the modified Burris teaches the irradiation device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of laser diode arrays are configured to emit energy beams that have a wavelength in the ultraviolet spectrum, the visible spectrum (Burris, [0043], laser diode 171 can generate the first energy beam at a first wavelength of 400 nanometers which is within the visible spectrum), the near-infrared spectrum, or the infrared spectrum.
Regarding Claim 9, the modified Burris teaches the irradiation device of claim 1, comprising: a beam conditioning assembly (Burris, Figure 3B, mirror 130) disposed downstream from the beam generation device (Figure 3B, mirror 130 is located downstream of the laser diode 171 and 172), the beam conditioning assembly comprising one or more lenses, the one or more lenses comprising a fast-axis collimating lens or a slow-axis collimating lens ([0095]).
Regarding Claim 10, the modified Burris teaches the irradiation device of claim 9, wherein the beam conditioning assembly comprises a beam homogenizer (Burris, [0095], the apparatus can include substantially low-power (e.g., ½-Watt to 2-Watt) laser diodes, which each generate a low-power energy beam that is passed through a corresponding beam shaper and then projected onto the topmost layer of powdered material in as a square array of square-shaped flattop energy beams, thus yielding a rectilinear spot of substantially uniform power distribution which is considered as homogenizing the energy beam by making them uniform).
PNG
media_image5.png
448
664
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, the modified Burris teaches the irradiation device of claim 1, comprising: a beam focusing assembly (Burris, Figure 3B, lens 160) disposed downstream from a beam conditioning assembly (Figure 3B, mirror 130), the beam focusing assembly comprising one or more focusing lenses ([0040], the lens 160 thus focusing the discrete energy beams toward (and substantially normal to) the powdered material over the build platform 112).
Regarding Claim 12, the modified Burris teaches the irradiation device of claim 1, comprising: a positioning system (Burris, Figure 2, first actuator 151), wherein the irradiation device is mounted to the positioning system (Figure 2, laser diodes 141 and 142 are mounted onto the first actuator 151), wherein the positioning system is configured to move the irradiation device (Figure 2 and [0040], first actuator 151 can translate the set of laser output optics with the first laser output optic 141 and the second laser output optic 142 relative to the build platform 112 and [0054]) .
Regarding Claim 13, the modified Burris teaches the irradiation device of claim 1, comprising: an irradiation carriage (Burris, see annotated Figure 2), wherein the plurality of laser diode arrays are coupled to the irradiation carriage (Figure 2, one or more bar diode 170 are coupled to the irradiation carriage); and one or more actuators (Figure 2, first actuator 151), wherein a respective one of the one or more actuators is configured to adjust a position of at least one of the plurality of laser diode arrays coupled to the irradiation carriage (Figure 2 and [0040], first actuator 151 can translate the set of laser output optics with the first laser output optic 141 and the second laser output optic 142 relative to the build platform 112 and [0054]).
Regarding Claim 14, the modified Burris teaches the irradiation device of claim 13, wherein the one or more actuators are respectively configured to provide a lateral positional adjustment or a longitudinal positional adjustment of the at least one of the plurality of laser diode arrays (Burris, Figure 2, [0017], a first actuator 151 configured to maneuver the first laser output optic 141 and the second laser output optic 142 along a first axis parallel to the layer of powdered material).
Regarding Claim 15, the modified Burris teaches the irradiation device of claim 1, comprising: an irradiation carriage (Burris, see annotated Figure 2 above), wherein the plurality of laser diode arrays are coupled to the irradiation carriage (Figure 2, one or more bar diode 170 are coupled to the irradiation carriage), wherein at least some of the plurality of laser diode arrays are arranged laterally adjacent to one another (Figure 2, a plurality of laser diode arrays, 141 and 142, are arranged laterally adjacent to one another ).
Regarding Claim 19, the modified Burris teaches the irradiation device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of diode array sets further comprise a third diode array set configured to provide post-treating (Burris, Figure 9 and [0069], processor control a power density of a third energy beam to achieve a target anneal temperature (or target heat transfer rate out of an annealing zone)).
Claims 21 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2014/0271328 (“Burris et al” hereinafter Burris) and US2022/0009030 (“Von Dadelszen et al” hereinafter von Dadelszen).
Regarding Claim 21, Burris teaches an irradiation device for additively manufacturing three-dimensional objects (abstract), the irradiation device (Figure 8) comprising:
a beam generation device (see annotated Figure 8 above) comprising a plurality of laser diode arrays (see annotated Figure 9 above), wherein respective ones of the plurality of laser diode arrays comprise a plurality of diode emitters respectively configured to emit an energy beam (see annotated Figure 9 above and [0071]);
wherein the plurality of laser diode arrays respectively emit a plurality of energy beams (see annotated Figure 9 above), respective ones of the plurality of energy beams emitted from corresponding ones of the plurality of diode emitters (see annotated Figure 9 above; each emitter emits a corresponding energy beam),
wherein the plurality of energy beams provide a corresponding plurality of beam spots incident upon a build array defined by a powder bed disposed below the irradiation device (see annotated Figure 8, the beam generation device located above the build platform and provide corresponding plurality of beam spots onto the build platform across the layer of powdered materials [0071]).
Burris fails to explicitly teach wherein the diode emitters are spaced apart by a diode pitch of about 50 micrometers to 100 micrometers. However, as the size and spacing of the laser sources are variables that can be modified by adjusting the diode pitch of the diode emitters, with said as the size of the laser source increases and the spacing of the laser source decreases, the diode pitch increases, as evidenced by von Dadelszen ([0061]), the precise diode pitch would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed diode pitch cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the diode pitch in the apparatus of Burris to obtain desired balance between the size and spacing of the laser source (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Burris fails to teach wherein the plurality of laser diode arrays are longitudinally offset relative to one another, wherein the plurality of laser diode arrays are laterally offset relative to one another, wherein the plurality of laser diode arrays respectively emit a plurality of energy beams, wherein at least some of the beams spots incident upon the powder bed are longitudinally offset from one another in an alternating pattern or sequence, and wherein the energy beams are spaced apart by a beam pitch that is less than the diode pitch.
However, von Dadelszen discloses wherein the plurality of laser diode arrays are longitudinally offset relative to one another (see annotated Figure 3G above); wherein the plurality of laser diode arrays is laterally offset relative to one another (see annotated Figure 3G above), wherein the plurality of laser diode arrays respectively emit a plurality of energy beams (Figure 3G, the plurality of laser arrays each comprises a laser source that emits laser beams), wherein at least some of the beams spots incident upon the powder bed are longitudinally offset from one another in an alternating pattern or sequence (Figure 3G, the plurality of laser arrays is longitudinally offset relative to one another by an array offset distance, Sy, [0068], one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is known in the art that if the laser arrays are offset from each other, the beam spots incident upon the powder bed, generated by these laser arrays, must also offset from each other which formed an alternating pattern or sequence), and wherein the energy beams are spaced apart by a beam pitch that is less than the diode pitch (von Dadelszen, Figure 3C represents the cross-sectional size and spacing of laser beams at cross section 3B- 3B, which is equivalent to the size and spacing of the laser emitter; thus, Sc is equivalent to diode pitch. Figure 3D represents the cross-sectional size and spacing of laser beams at cross section 3D- 3D, which is equivalent to the size and spacing of the emitted laser beam upon a surface; thus, Sd is equivalent to beam pitch. Von Dadelszen further discloses in some embodiments SD <SC which means the beam pitch is less than the diode pitch).
Burris and von Dadelszen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of producing a 3D object using an emitter array configured to produce a plurality of laser spots on the build surface. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the arrangements of the plurality of laser diode array as taught by Burris such that it discloses all of the above discussed limitations as taught by von Dadelszen because the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known way to arrange the plurality of laser beams ([0067]). See MPEP 2143.
Regarding Claim 23, the modified Burris teaches the irradiation device of claim 22 (Interpreted as depended upon claim 21 since claim 22 is cancel), wherein the plurality of laser diode arrays are longitudinally offset relative to one another by an array offset distance determined relative to an optical axis of the respective ones of the plurality of laser diode arrays (von Dadelszen, Figure 3G, the plurality of laser arrays is longitudinally offset relative to one another by an array offset distance, Sy, [0068], which implied that the beam spots radiated by the laser arrays are longitudinally off in an alternating pattern or sequence as well).
Regarding Claim 24, the modified Burris teaches the method of claim 22 (Interpreted as depended upon claim 21 since claim 22 is cancel),
wherein the alternating pattern or sequence provides for a more uniform power density and/or improved controllability of the power density, relative to a default setting, at respective build points (von Dadelszen, [0027], selective control over both the size of
the laser beam spots as well as the spacing between the separate laser beam spots may be associated with better control over the printing process and independent control over laser beam spot size and spacing may expand operating process windows, which may allow tuning of other parameters that may have previously been constrained. Increased control over print parameters may enable the processing of non-homogenous materials and/or may enable multi-material printing).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues Von Dadelszen is completely silent with respect to "the plurality of energy beams provide a corresponding plurality of beam spots incident upon a build array defined by a powder bed disposed below the irradiation device, and wherein at least some of the beams spots incident upon the powder bed are longitudinally offset from one another in an alternating pattern or sequence" elements in a manner as now recited, respectively, in amended independent claims 1, 17 and 22.
The Examiner respectfully disagreed. Von Dadelszen discloses a staggered array laser configuration with adjacent rows of laser beams being staggered and the plurality of laser arrays is longitudinally offset relative to one another by an array offset distance, Sy, (see annotated Figure 3G and [0068]). Von Dadelszen further discloses selective control over both the size of the laser beam spots as well as the spacing between the separate laser beam spots may be associated with better control over the printing process and independent control over laser beam spot size and spacing may expand operating process windows, which may allow tuning of other parameters that may have previously been constrained ([0027]). Beams spot is defined as the diameter of a laser beam when it is focused onto a surface. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is known in the art that if the laser arrays are offset from each other, the beam spots incident upon the powder bed, generated by the same laser arrays, must also offset from each other which formed an alternating pattern or sequence to better control over the printing process ([0027]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action for newly added claim 24. 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 XINWEN (Cindy) YE whose telephone number is (571)272-3010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 - 17:00.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
XINWEN (CINDY) YE
Examiner
Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754