DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/remarks filed on 09/25/2025 have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim objection(s), Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s) has/have overcome the objection(s).
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Applicant's amendment(s) to the claim(s) 3-4 and 10 has/have overcome the claim rejection(s).
With respect to claim 7, Applicant’s argument that the term “Gor′kov methodology” is well understood by one skilled in the art is not found persuasive. Applicant fails to provide any evidence that term “Gor′kov methodology” is well understood by one skilled in the art. Examiner submits that the search “(B29C64$.CPC. OR B33Y$.CPC. B22F10$.CPC.) AND (Gor'kov NEAR3 method$5)” yields only one hit (i.e., Applicant’s published application). Thus, the term “Gor′kov methodology” in the art of direct energy deposition is not well-known or well understood by one skilled in the art. Furthermore, it is noted that the “Gor′kov methodology” in other art calculates the acoustic radiation force on a small particle suspended in an arbitrary acoustic field, not the sound field itself. Thus, Examiner maintains the 112(b) rejection of claim 7.
With respect to claim 17 and 18, Examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejections in view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments that the claimed sound field is expected to yield the claimed results via the implicit/intrinsic/indirect disclosed interrelationship between sound field, characteristics of the particle stream, melt pool, and material properties.
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) of claims 17 and 18, Examiner withdraws the 112(a) rejections in view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments that the claimed sound field is expected to yield the claimed results via the implicit/indirect disclosed interrelationship between sound field, characteristics of the particle stream, melt pool, and material properties.
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102 based on Putkis, Applicant argues that Putkis fails to disclose the limitations “passing a particle stream thorough or by the sound filed towards a part being fabricated” and “melting the particle stream as it contacts the part being fabricated” because Putkis only teaches that the particle stream can be trapped by the acoustic field in paragraph [0015]. According to Applicant, the system of Putkis traps the material or electric component 3 within the acoustic field 4 and the base 8 supporting the part being fabricated is moved in order to come into contact with the suspended material based on [0015] of Putkis.
Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive because i) Applicant ignores the teachings of Putkis in paragraph [0017] cited in the rejection, ii) Applicant fails to consider the entire disclosure of Putkis such as the fact that the base 8 supporting the part in the system of Putkis can be movable or fixed and [0015] only describes an embodiment, iii) Putkis explicitly discloses to use the acoustic field (4) to transport the suspend/trapped material (3) specially if the base 8 supporting the part is fixed in [0017], and iv) the arrow next to material (3) shown in Fig. 1 clearly shows/indicates a travel path of material (3) includes leaving the acoustic field (4) towards the object 7 being fabricated in the fixed base (8).
[0017] of Putkis reads:
Method for contactless manipulation of materials and/or components, such as electronic components, comprises introducing and suspending material (3) needed for object (7) formation, which may be liquid, solid or amorphous, wherein the material is fed into an acoustic field (4) generated within the apparatus (10) using a feed device (5); subsequent contactless transportation of the material or the component (3) to desired location using acoustic field (4); attaching the material and/or component to the object being formed on a fixed or movable base (8) by melting, solidifying or welding by exposing material and/or component to electromagnetic radiation. The process of material and/or component joining to the object being printed by melting, solidifying or welding can be sequenced and combined to suit specific task, for example so, that liquid material is transported and solidified on a surface of a printed object using ultraviolet radiation, electronic component is transported to the object being printed and welded to it using laser beam; or solid material is fed into ultrasonic field, melted and transported to the object being printed in liquid state and left to solidify on the surface of the object.
Applicant further argues that the sound field in Putkis is used to suspend material or objects and not to direct material or object towards the part being fabricated based only on paragraphs 9 and 16.
Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive because Applicant fails to consider the entire disclosure of Putkis and mischaracterizes the teachings of Putkis in paragraphs 9 and 16. As Applicant admitted, the acoustic fields in Putkis are suitable for object suspension and manipulation, wherein manipulation in the disclosure of Putkis encompasses moving/transporting the suspended object 3 to desired location in space such as towards the object being fabricated ([0009], [0016-0017], Fig. 1; wherein the arrow next to material (3) shown in Fig. 1 clearly shows/indicates a travel path of material (3) includes leaving the acoustic field (4) towards the object 7 being fabricated).
For at least the reasons set forth above, the 102 rejections based on Putkis are maintained.
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102 based on Ryan, Applicant argues that
Ryan fails to disclose the limitation “passing a particle stream thorough or by the sound filed towards a part being fabricated” because Ryan is directing the metal-containing particles towards a first node at step 110 and does not care about where the part being fabricated is located since the working surface is positioned proximate the first node at step 120.
Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive. Applicant fails to consider the entire disclosure of Ryan and mischaracterizes the teachings of Ryan. Since the part being fabricated is located in the working surface and the working surface can be positioned below or adjacent the first node, the metal-containing particles pass thorough or by the first node before reaching the part being fabricated located at the working surface. Fig. 7A-D of Ryan clearly shows passing metal-containing particles 152 thorough or by first node 153 of a sound field (6) towards a component 158 being fabricated located apart from the first node 153 (P0049, Fig. 7A-D).
PNG
media_image1.png
237
427
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 9 of Ryan clearly shows passing a stream of particles (152’, 152’’, 154, etc.) thorough or by nodes of a sound field (6/7) towards a part being fabricated at a working surface (54), the part being fabricated located apart from entire the sound field (P0058-0059). Thus, Ryan discloses the argued limitation substantially as claimed by applicant.
PNG
media_image2.png
352
446
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For at least the reasons set forth above, the 102 rejection based on Ryan is maintained.
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(s) 7 is/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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “calculating the sound field using a Gor′kov methodology” which is indefinite. The term “Gor′kov methodology” makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. The term is not an ordinary or well-known term in the art of directed energy deposition. The term is only used by Applicant in the art of directed energy deposition, but it is not defined in Applicant’s disclosure. Furthermore, it is noted that the “Gor′kov methodology” calculates the acoustic radiation force on a small particle suspended in an arbitrary acoustic field, not the sound field itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Putkis (US 20180304500 – of record).
Regarding claim 1, Putkis discloses a method of directed energy deposition (P0007, 0017)
comprising:
generating a sound field (P0015, Figs. 1);
passing a particle stream (particle stream of material 3 shown in Figs. 1-2) through or by the sound field (4) towards a part (7) being fabricated (P0015, 0017, 0019, Figs. 1-2; wherein the term “manipulation” in the disclosure of Putkis encompasses moving/transporting the suspended material 3 to a desired location in space such as towards the object being fabricated: P0009, 0016-0017, Fig. 1; wherein the arrow next to material (3) shown in Fig. 1 clearly shows/indicates a travel path of material (3) includes leaving the acoustic field 4 towards the object 7 being fabricated); and
melting the particle stream as it contacts the part being fabricated (attaching the particle stream of material the object formed by melting subsequently after the sound field transports the material 3 to a desired location where the material is to be attached: P0017, 0019);
wherein the sound field controls at least one characteristic of the particle stream as it passes through the sound field and contacts the part being fabricated (the sound field 4 extends up to the base 8 and controls trajectory/path, manipulation, orientation, positioning of the particle stream as the particle stream passes through the sound field and contacts the part being fabricated: P0015, 0020, claim 8, Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
446
557
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Putkis further discloses generating and directing the particle stream before generating the sound field (the particle stream of material 3 is generated via feed device 5 before the sound field is generated such that the material is transported by the generated sound field: P0015, 0017, 0019, Figs. 1-2). Additionally, the generation of the particle stream before the generation yields the predictable result of saving energy as there is no point in generating the sound field when no particles are present/manipulated. See MPEP 2144.04 IV C.
Regarding claim 5, Putkis further discloses wherein generating a sound field comprises:
determining desired characteristics of the particle stream (determining the desired trajectory/path/transportation, positioning, and/or manipulation of the particle stream from parameters stored in a program and/or from a feedback signal: P0009, 0015, 0020, claim 8);
calculating the sound field required to achieve the desired characteristics (P0015-0016); and
transmitting signals to sound sources (1) to generate the sound field (P0020).
Regarding claim 6, Putkis further discloses wherein calculating the sound field comprises: calculating the sound field using numerical optimization of signal amplitude and/or phases of sound sources (P0016).
Regarding claim 10, Putkis further discloses wherein the at least one characteristic comprises a particle stream cross-sectional particle distribution, a cross-sectional size of the particle stream, or a shape of the particle stream, or a path of the particle stream (path/trajectory of the particle stream: P0015, 0020, claim 8, Fig. 1). Additionally, as evidenced by prior art of record, sound fields manipulating/transporting particle streams are expected to control a cross-sectional particle distribution of the particle stream, a cross-sectional size of the particle stream, a shape of the particle stream, or a path of the particle stream.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ryan (US 20160228991 – of record).
Regarding claim 1, Ryan discloses a method of directed energy deposition (abstract, P0002, 0034) comprising:
generating a sound field (P0047, Figs. 3 and 6);
passing a particle stream through the sound field towards a part being fabricated (P0034, 0035, 0047, Figs. 3-4, and 6; wherein Fig. 4 depicts the direction of the particle stream towards a part being fabricated at the working surface: P0034, 0048); and
melting the particle stream as it contacts the part being fabricated (P0048, Fig. 6); and
wherein the sound field controls at least one characteristic of the particle stream as it passes through the sound field and contacts the part being fabricated (the sound field controls the focal point, distribution, and/or path of the particle stream as it passes through the sound field: P0034, Fig. 9 defecting the altered/changed path, and Fig. 3A-B depicting the altered/changed distribution; wherein the sound field is clearly maintained adjacent to the contact point and while the particle streams arrives at the part being fabricated without additional modification to the particle stream: P0052, Fig. 7A, claim 10). Thus, Ryan discloses the method substantially as claimed by applicant.
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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Putkis as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Mehta (US 4730093 – of record).
Regarding claims 3-4, Putkis further discloses wherein generating and directing the particle stream comprises:
transporting material from a feed … to a material nozzle (end of feed device 5 is depicted as having the function of a nozzle and feed device is depicted as extending beyond the shown apparatus: P0015, 0017, Fig. 1); and
directing the particle stream towards the part being fabricated (P0017, Fig. 1).
Putkis is silent about the details for the feed device.
In the same field of endeavor, methods of directed energy deposition, Mehta discloses the technique of transporting material from a material feed system (40 + 50) to a material nozzle (56); generating and directing a particle stream towards a part being fabricated via the nozzle (Fig. 5), wherein transporting material from the material feed system to the material nozzle is via a pressurized gas system (44 + 46: Fig. 5) for the benefit(s) of improving material feeding and dispensing (Abstract, C5, L60-C6, L29).
Additionally, official notice is taken that the steps of these claims are well-known/desirable in the art.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Putkis in view of Mehta by transporting material from a material feed system to the material nozzle, wherein transporting material from the material feed system to the material nozzle is via a pressurized gas system for the benefit(s) of improving material feeding and dispensing as suggested by Mehta.
Claim(s) 6, 8, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Putkis as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Marzo (Holographic Acoustic Tweezers – NPL of record) and/or AAPA.
Regarding claim 6, Putkis fails to disclose calculating the sound field using an iterative backpropagation methodology.
In analogous art, manipulation of particles via sound fields, Marzo discloses the technique of calculating a sound field using an iterative backpropagation methodology (IB algorithm) for the benefit(s) of maximizing the trap quality and/or providing/improving manipulations/traps (pages 84-88).
As evidenced by [0059] and [0068] of Applicant’s published application which qualifies as Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), the technique of calculating a desired sound field using an iterative backpropagation methodology is known/desirable. See MPEP § 2129.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Putkis in view of Marzo and/or APPA by using an iterative backpropagation methodology to calculate a target sound field as this is a known suitable manner of calculating it and/or for the benefit(s) of maximizing the trap quality and/or providing/improving manipulations/traps.
Regarding claim 8, Putkis further suggests/shows wherein generating the sound field comprises: generating at least one sound period averaged pressure intensity isosurface (sound field 4 is shown as a sound vortex field in Fig. 1 which is expected to have at least one sound period averaged pressure intensity isosurface in view of [0056-0057] and [0061] of Applicant’s published application; furthermore, the taught and the clamed/disclosed sound fields are substantially similar).
Furthermore, Marzo further discloses the technique of generating vortex trap/field by adjusting the amplitude and phase for the benefit(s) of maximizing the trap quality and/or providing/improving manipulations/traps (pages 84-88; wherein the vortex trap is expected to have at least one sound period averaged pressure intensity isosurface in view of [0056-0057] of Applicant’s published application).
Since Putkis further teaches that amplitude and phase are adjustable to create suitable sound fields (P0009, 0016), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further have modified the method of Putkis in view of Marzo by generating vortex trap field comprising at least one sound period averaged pressure intensity isosurface for the benefit(s) of maximizing the trap quality and/or providing/improving manipulations/trapping.
Regarding claim 16, Putkis further suggests/shows wherein generating the sound field comprises: generating isosurfaces for controlling the particle stream as the particle stream passes through or by the isosurfaces (sound field 4 is shown as a sound vortex/3D field in Fig. 1 which is expected to have isosurfaces in view of [0056-0057] and [0061] of Applicant’s published application; furthermore, the taught and the clamed/disclosed sound fields are substantially similar).
Furthermore, Marzo further discloses the technique of generating vortex trap/field by adjusting the amplitude and phase for the benefit(s) of maximizing the trap quality and/or providing/improving manipulations/traps (pages 84-88; wherein the vortex trap is expected to have isosurfaces in view of [0056-0057] of Applicant’s published application). Under the BRI, the holographic acoustic tweezers of Marzo are expected to comprise isosurfaces.
Since Putkis further teaches that amplitude and phase are adjustable to create suitable sound fields (P0009, 0016), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further have modified the method of Putkis in view of Marzo by generating vortex trap fields comprising isosurfaces for the benefit(s) of maximizing the trap quality and/or providing/improving manipulation/trapping of the particle stream.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Putkis in view of Marzo and/or AAPA as applied to claim 6 above, alone or further in view of Kaduchak (US 20090178716 – of record).
Regarding claim 7, Putkis, as applied to claim 6 above, fails to disclose calculating the sound field using Gor′kov equation.
However, Marzo further mentions/suggests using the Gor′kov equation (pg. 88).
As evidenced by [0074] of Applicant’s published application which qualifies as Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), the technique of calculating a desired sound field using/combining Gor′kov potential equation is known. See MPEP § 2129.
In analogous art, manipulation of particles via sound fields, Kaduchak discloses/suggests the technique of calculating a sound field using/combining Gor′kov potential equation (P0048-0052).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Putkis in view of Marzo, APPA, and/or Kaduchak by using/combining Gor′kov potential equation to calculate the sound field as this is a known suitable manner of calculating it.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Putkis in view of as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaduchak (US 20090178716 – of record).
Regarding claim 9, Putkis fails to disclose coating the particle stream with a gaseous or liquid medium before passing the particle stream through or by the sound field.
In analogous art, manipulation of particles via sound fields, Kaduchak discloses the technique of coating the particle stream with a gaseous or liquid medium before passing the particle stream through or by the sound field for the benefit(s) of achieving hydrodynamical focusing before acoustic focusing and/or improving focusing/stabilization of the particle stream (P0015, 0061-0063, Fig. 7B).
Additionally, official notice is taken that the step coating/sheathing the particle stream with a gaseous or liquid medium as the particle stream leaves the nozzle, and therefore, before the particle stream passes the particle stream through or by the sound field is well-known/desirable in the art.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Putkis in view of Kaduchak by coating the particle stream with a gaseous or liquid medium before passing the particle stream through or by the sound field for the benefit(s) of achieving hydrodynamical focusing before acoustic focusing and/or improving focusing/stabilization of the particle stream.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Putkis in view of as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hyde (US 20150064047 – of record).
Regarding claim 17, Putkis fails to explicitly disclose wherein the sound field further controls material properties of the part being fabricated by controlling characteristics of the particle stream.
However, since the taught sound field is patentably identical to the claimed sound field and the characteristics of the particle stream are expected be interrelated with material properties of the part being fabricated (for instance, a denser particle stream cross-sectional particle distribution is expected to enhance material strength of the part being fabricated by reducing porosity), the sound field of Putkis is expected to intrinsically yield the claimed results/functions. See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I and 2114.
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor, methods of directed energy deposition, Hyde discloses the technique of controlling acoustic waves to control mechanical properties of the part being fabricated (P0044, 0055).
Official notice is taken that the technique of applying acoustic wave/field to the part being fabricated is used to control material properties of the part being fabricated by controlling internal/residual stress, controlling crystallization, and/or controlling porosity.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Putkis in view of Hyde by configuring the sound field to control characteristics of the particle stream in order to control material properties of the part being fabricated for the benefit(s) of improving material properties of the part being fabricated and increasing advantages of the method.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Putkis in view of Hyde as applied to claim 17 above, alone or further in view of Ryan (US 20160228991 – of record).
Regarding claim 18, the combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein the sound field controls material properties of the part being fabricated by controlling a shape of a melt pool of the part being fabricated by controlling characteristics of the particle stream.
However, since the taught sound field is patentably identical to the claimed sound field and the characteristics of the particle stream are expected be interrelated with melt pool shape/size and material properties of the part being fabricated (for instance, a smaller particle stream cross-sectional particle distribution or shape is expected to control a shape/size of the melt pool), the sound field of Putkis is expected to intrinsically yield the claimed results/functions. See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I and 2114.
In the same field of endeavor, methods of directed energy deposition, Ryan discloses controlling a shape of a melt pool of the part being fabricated based on the shape/volume of manipulated/levitated particles being laser processed (P0044). Ryan discloses the direct relationship between the shape/volume of manipulated/levitated particles and the sound field (Figs. 3A-B, Fig. 9) while the direct relationship between shape of the melt pool and materials properties is known/expected in the art. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known/recognized that the sound field, the shape/volume of manipulated/levitated particles in the sound field, the melt pool, and the material properties are interrelated.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further have modified the method of Putkis in view of Ryan by configuring the sound field to control material properties of the part being fabricated by controlling a shape of a melt pool of the part being fabricated by controlling characteristics of the particle stream.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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.
For additional prior art of record and not relied upon that is considered to be pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure see Notice of References Cited PTOL 892.
Foresti (US 20190160813) discloses a relevant acoustophoretic printing method (entire document).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0625. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00-10:00 PM PT.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached on 571-270-5516. 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.
JERZI H. MORENO HERNANDEZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743