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 Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the amendment/remarks filed on 10/08/2025. After entry of this amendment, claims 1-20 are currently pending in this Application.
Any rejection and/or objection made in the previous Office action and not repeated below is hereby withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-8 and 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0085896 to Paramban
et al. (hereinafter Paramban).
With respect to claim 1, Paramban teaches a bonded abrasive tool in the form of
thin wheels used in grinding, cutting, and general material removal operations
(Paramban, abstract, [0015]). Paramban teaches a ratio of diameter to the thickness of
at least 10:1 for the body of the abrasive tool wherein the diameter of the body can be at least 10 mm, or even at least 100 mm, and the thickness of the body is not greater than 10 mm, or not greater than 8 mm (Paramban, [0018]-[0020]). Thus, inevitably, the
abrasive tool of Paramban has a diameter. Furthermore, Paramban teaches the use of
abrasive particles in the abrasive tool, wherein the abrasive particles can be
agglomerated particles of the material such as brown fused alumina (Paramban,
[0048]). The reference teaches the abrasive tool contains organic bonding material
(Paramban, [0054]). Also although not claimed in claim 1, the reference recognizes the
presence of porosity in the abrasive tool (Paramban, [0071]-[0073]) which are disclosed
in the original disclosure of the present Application under examination (see
specification, page 10, [0031] and page 18, [0052]). In addition, although not claimed in
claim 1, as noted above, Paramban discloses the most preferred material of the
abrasive particles, i.e. brown fused alumina, as that disclosed in the original
specification of the present Application under examination (specification, page 4, [0017]-[0018]).
Thus, the reference teaches a substantially similar abrasive tool compared with
what is claimed; considering the fact that the reference discloses a porous bonded
abrasive tool having the very same ratio of the diameter to thickness, and wherein the
reference utilizes an organic bond material and comprises agglomerated abrasive
grains of the material brown fused alumina, the characteristics of "a mean vibration
factor of no greater than 8.25 m/s², and a burst speed of at least 18700-D*54 min-1" are
expected to follow from the abrasive tool of Paramban absence evidence to the
contrary. MPEP 2112.01 states "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical
or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or
substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or
obviousness has been established." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,
433 (CCPA 1977).
With respect to claim 4, Paramban teaches "a uniform distribution can exist for
any and all component of the body" (Paramban, [0044]); the porosity of the body is also
a component of the abrasive tool body. According to the original disclosure of the
present Application under examination, porosity distribution factor is calculated by
dividing the difference between the amount of inner diameter porosity and outer
diameter porosity by the total amount of porosity (see specification, page 20, [0056]).
Thus, a uniform distribution of pores would result in a difference of zero, which would
result in a porosity distribution factor of zero. Considering the fact that Paramban is
open to having a uniform distribution for "any and all" components, which is taken to
include the porosity as well, this is taken to apply to all types of porosity, whether small
or large pores. Thus, the reference is taken to render the large porosity distribution
factor of zero, or at least, close to zero obvious. The claimed range of "no greater than
0.95" is inclusive of zero or values close to it. Therefore, the reference is seen to render
the claim obvious.
With respect to claim 5, Paramban teaches "a uniform distribution can exist for
any and all component of the body" (Paramban, [0044]); the porosity of the body is also
a component of the abrasive tool body. According to the original disclosure of the
present Application under examination, porosity distribution factor is calculated by
dividing the difference between the amount of inner diameter porosity and outer
diameter porosity by the total amount of porosity (see specification of the present Application under examination, page 20, [0056]).
Thus, a uniform distribution of pores would result in a difference of zero, which would result in a porosity distribution factor of zero. Considering the fact that Paramban is open to having a uniform distribution for "any and all" components, which is taken to
include the porosity as well, the reference renders a porosity distribution factor of zero,
or at least, close to zero obvious. The claimed range of "no greater than 0.35" is
inclusive of zero or values close to it. Therefore, the reference is seen to render the
claim obvious.
With respect to claim 7, as noted above, under the rejection of claim 1,
Paramban teaches a bonded abrasive tool in the form of thin wheels used in grinding,
cutting, and general material removal operations (Paramban, abstract, [0015]).
Paramban teaches an aspect ratio of at least 10:1 for the body of the abrasive tool
wherein the diameter of the body can be at least 10 mm, or even at least 100 mm, and
the thickness of the body is not greater than 10 mm (Paramban, [0018]-[0020]). Thus,
inevitably, the abrasive tool of Paramban has a diameter. Furthermore, Paramban
teaches the use of abrasive particles in the abrasive tool, wherein the abrasive particles can be agglomerated particles of the material such as brown fused alumina (Paramban, [0048]). Although not claimed in claim 1, the reference also recognizes the presence of porosity in the abrasive tool (Paramban, [0071]-[0073]) and containing organic bonding material (Paramban, [0054]) which are disclosed in the original disclosure of the present Application under examination (see specification, page 10, [0031] and page 18, [0052]). In addition, although not claimed in claim 1, as noted above, Paramban discloses the most preferred material of the abrasive particles, i.e. brown fused alumina, as that disclosed in the original specification of the present Application under examination (specification of the present application under examination, page 4, [0017]-[0018]).
Thus, the reference teaches a substantially similar abrasive tool compared with
what is claimed; considering the fact that the reference discloses a porous bonded
abrasive tool having the very same ratio of the diameter to thickness, and wherein the
reference utilizes an organic bond material and comprises agglomerated abrasive
grains of the material brown fused alumina, the characteristics of "a burst speed of not
greater than 35000-D*54 min-1" are expected to follow from the abrasive tool of
Paramban absence evidence proving the contrary. MPEP 2112.01 states "Where the
claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or
composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima
facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." In re Best, 562
F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
With respect to claim 8, Paramban teaches some exemplary abrasive particles
and specifically discloses that "or a combination thereof" may be used (Paramban,
[0048]), clearly suggesting that the use of more than one of such abrasive particles is
only optional but not required. Therefore, the use of non-agglomerated particles is not
required.
With respect to claim 10, Paramban teaches the use of brown fused alumina
(Paramban [0048]).
With respect to claim 11, Paramban teaches the use of an organic bond material
(Paramban, [0054]).
With respect to claim 12, it is noted that the claim depends from claim 1, and
claim 1 is a product claim; thus, the nature of the starting materials/ingredients, e.g. a
pore forming material, does not further limit the final product, i.e. claimed abrasive
article, under examination. MPEP 2113 states "[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). Nevertheless, Paramban does not disclose the presence of any pore forming material in the final bonded abrasive tool.
With respect to claim 13, Paramban teaches the presence of closed porosity
within the bonded abrasive article (Paramban, [0070] and [0072]).
With respect to claims 14-15, as noted above, under the rejection of claim 1,
Paramban teaches a bonded abrasive tool in the form of thin wheels used in grinding,
cutting, and general material removal operations (Paramban, abstract, [0015]).
Paramban teaches an aspect ratio of at least 10:1 for the body of the abrasive tool
wherein the diameter of the body can be at least 10 mm, or even at least 100 mm, and
the thickness of the body is not greater than 10 mm (Paramban, [0018]-[0020]). Thus,
inevitably, the abrasive tool of Paramban has a diameter. Furthermore, Paramban
teaches the use of abrasive particles in the abrasive tool, wherein the abrasive particles can be agglomerated particles of the material such as brown fused alumina (Paramban, [0048]). Although not claimed in claim 1, the reference also recognizes the presence of porosity in the abrasive tool (Paramban, [0071]-[0073]) and containing organic bonding material (Paramban, [0054]) which are disclosed in the original disclosure of the present Application under examination (see specification, page 10, [0031] and page 18, [0052]). In addition, although not claimed in claim 1, as noted above, Paramban discloses the most preferred material of the abrasive particles, i.e. brown fused alumina, as that disclosed in the original specification of the present Application under examination (specification of the present Application under examination, page 4, [0017]-[0018]).
Thus, the reference teaches a substantially similar abrasive tool compared with
what is claimed; considering the fact that the reference discloses a porous bonded
abrasive tool having the very same ratio of the diameter to thickness, and wherein the
reference utilizes an organic bond material and comprises agglomerated abrasive
grains of the material brown fused alumina, the characteristics of "a vibration factor of
less than 8.2 m/s²" and "a vibration factor of at least 1 m/s²" are expected to follow from
the abrasive tool of Paramban absence evidence to the contrary. MPEP 2112.01 states
"Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in
structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical
processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been
established." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
With respect to claim 16, Paramban teaches using various techniques to produce the abrasive tool including cold pressing (Paramban, [0074]); the reference teaches mixing the components to produce a green body (Paramban, [0068]). The reference discloses that the pressure applied during the pressing can be 70.3 kg/cm² which is approximately 63.35 bar (Paramban, [0074]). MPEP 2144.05 states "In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists." In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Moreover, the reference discloses using pressing to mold the abrasive tool, such
as a wheel, which is then cured at a curing temperature (Paramban, [0075]-[0078]).
Additionally, the abrasive tool taught by Paramban is a bonded abrasive tool in
the form of thin wheels used in grinding, cutting, and general material removal
operations (Paramban, abstract, [0015]). Paramban teaches a ratio of the diameter to
the thickness of the body of the tool of at least 10:1 wherein the diameter of the body
can be at least 10 mm, or even at least 100 mm, and the thickness of the body is not
greater than 10 mm, or even not greater than 8 mm (Paramban, [0018]-[0020]). Thus,
inevitably, the abrasive tool of Paramban has a diameter. Furthermore, Paramban
teaches the use of abrasive particles in the abrasive tool, wherein the abrasive particles can be agglomerated particles of the material such as brown fused alumina (Paramban, [0048]). The reference teaches the tool comprises organic bonding material (Paramban, [0054]); also, although not claimed in claim 1, the reference recognizes the presence of porosity in the abrasive tool (Paramban, [0071]-[0073]) and which are disclosed in the original disclosure of the present Application under examination (see specification, page 10, [0031] and page 18, [0052]). In addition, although not claimed in claim 1, as noted above, Paramban discloses the most preferred material of the abrasive particles, i.e. brown fused alumina, as that disclosed in the original specification of the present Application under examination (specification, page 4, [0017]-[0018]).
Thus, the reference teaches a substantially similar abrasive tool compared with
what is claimed not only based on the material but also based on the process of
manufacturing; considering the fact that the reference discloses a porous bonded
abrasive tool having the very same ratio of the diameter to thickness, and wherein the
reference utilizes an organic bond material and comprises agglomerated abrasive
grains of the material brown fused alumina, the characteristics of "a mean vibration
factor of no greater than 8.25 m/s², and a burst speed of at least 18700-D*54 min-1" are
expected to follow from the abrasive tool of Paramban absence evidence proving the
contrary. MPEP 2112.01 states "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical
or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or
substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or
obviousness has been established." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,
433 (CCPA 1977).
With respect to claim 17, Paramban teaches pressing the mixture in the mold, to
form the green body, to a pressure of for example 70.3 kg/cm² which is approximately
63.35 bar (Paramban, [0074]) which is more than the claimed 30 bar. MPEP 2144.05
states "In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by
the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists." In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,
191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed.
Cir. 1990).
With respect to claim 18, Paramban teaches pressing the mixture in the mold, to
form the green body, to a pressure of for example 70.3 kg/cm² which is approximately
63.35 bar (Paramban, [0074]) which is less than the claimed 275 bar. MPEP 2144.05
states "In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by
the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists." In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,
191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed.
Cir. 1990).
With respect to claims 19 and 20, considering the fact that the reference
discloses a porous bonded abrasive tool having the very same ratio of the diameter to
thickness, and wherein the reference utilizes an organic bond material and comprises
agglomerated abrasive grains of the material brown fused alumina, the claimed
characteristic of achieving a MRR of at least 27 g/min and no greater than 50 g/min,
upon using the bonded abrasive tool, are expected to follow from the disclosed abrasive tool of Paramban, absence evidence proving the contrary.
Nevertheless, it is inevitable that the material removal rate of any abrasive tool
depends multiple factors including the workpiece to be polished, and thus, can be
modified accoringly. MPEP 2144 states "The rationale to modify or combine the prior art
does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or
impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally
available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal
precedent established by prior case law." In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596
(Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see
also In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Claim(s) 2, 3, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Paramban as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent
Application Publication No. 2011/0027564 to Francois et al. (hereinafter Francois).
With respect to claim 2, Paramban teaches a porous bonded abrasive article
comprising agglomerated abrasive grains of the material such as brown fused alumina
in an organic bond material, wherein the abrasive article has a ratio of diameter to
thickness of at least 10:1, as detailed out above.
However, Paramban does not disclose a ratio of the large porosity to small
porosity of at least 0.4 and no greater than 10.
Francois, directed to an abrasive tool having a body which has an aspect ratio of
at least about 10:1 (Francois, abstract, [0008], [0027]), teaches the abrasive tool has a
disk-like or a cylindrical shape (Francois, [0021]) and a diameter of at least about 60
cm, or even at least 100 cm (Francois, [0021]) with an average thickness of not greater
than 2.5 cm (Francois, [0026]). Francois, additionally, teaches utilizing a matrix, i.e.
bond, material including an organic material (Francois, [0040]-[0041]), and comprising
abrasive grains having a Vickers hardness of at least about 5 GPa of materials such as
alumina (Francois, [0035]-[0036]). Furthermore, Francois teaches bimodal pore size
distribution containing large pores and small ones, wherein the percent difference
between the average large pore size and average small pore size is "at least" 25%
based on the equation ((Pi-Ps)/Pi)x100) wherein Pi>Ps, wherein stands for large pore
size and Ps stands for small pore size (Francois, [0049]-[0050]). Francois discloses this
percentage can be at least 30%, at least about 50%, at least 70% (Francois, [0050]).
Francois discloses the embodiment of Figure 7 which shows an embodiment of the
bimodal pore size distribution with a large pore size peak of 4.61 mm and a small pore
size peak of 310 microns (Figure 7). The pore count for the peak of the small pore size
is approximately 35000 and the pore count for the peak of the large pore size peak is
approximately 32500; however, the large pore size has a much wider distribution than
the distribution for the small pores, and this is a reflective of the fact that the pore count
for the large pore size is more than the pore count for the small pores. Based on the
area shown in the Figure, it is estimated that the area, reflecting the pore count, covered by the pores having large pore size is not more than 10 times the area covered by the pores having small pore size. Thus, Francois is seen to render claimed ratio of the large porosity to small porosity of at least 0.4 and no greater than 10 obvious due to
substantial overlapping. MPEP 2144.05 states "In the case where the claimed ranges
"overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of
obviousness exists." In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In
re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Paramban teaches a porosity of at least 5vol% and not greater than 40 vol%
(Paramban, [0073]), and Francois teaches a porosity of between at least 5vol% and not
greater than 30vol% (Francois, [0058]). Thus, even the average total porosities of the
two references are very similar.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to have modified Paramban with the teachings of Francois in order to incorporate the bimodal distribution of pores of Francois, rendering the ratio of the large porosity to small ones between 0.4 to 10 obvious, into the teachings of Paramban
motivated by the fact that not only the two references are drawn to porous bonded
abrasive articles of a ratio of diameter to thickness of at least 10:1 containing organic
bond and having alumina abrasive grains, but also motivated by the fact that Francois
discloses improved grinding and/or cutting applications (Francois, [0059]). Moreover,
the teachings of Francois on the use of bimodal distribution of pores having large and
small pores with a difference of at least 25% wherein Figure 7 shows that the ratio of
the large porosity to the small one substantially overlaps with the claimed one, is a clear evidence of the fact that such a pore size distribution in porous bonded abrasive articles in the form of thin disk or thin wheel has been known and recognized in the art of abrasive articles, and therefore, this is taken as further evidence that the use of a
bimodal distribution of pores has been known and recognized in the art.
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Paramban in view of Francois renders the claim obvious; this is because the embodiment of Figure 7 of Francois teaches an area covered by the large pores which is approximately at least 8 times, or
approximately, roughly 10 times the area covered by the small pores. Therefore, most
certainly "at least" 18% of the porosity is large pores.
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Paramban in view of Francois renders the claim obvious. This is because Paramban teaches "a uniform distribution can exist for any and all component of the body" (Paramban, [0044]); the porosity of the body is, also, a component of the abrasive tool body. According to the original disclosure of the present Application under examination, porosity distribution factor is calculated by dividing the difference between the amount of inner diameter porosity and outer diameter porosity by the total amount of porosity (see specification, page 20, [0056]).
Thus, a uniform distribution of pores would result in a difference of zero, which would result in a porosity distribution factor of zero. Considering the fact that Paramban is open to having a uniform distribution for "any and all" components, which is taken to
include the porosity as well, this is taken to apply to all types of porosity, whether small
or large pores. Thus, the reference is taken to render the large porosity distribution
factor of zero, or at least, close to zero obvious. The claimed range of "no greater than
0.95" is inclusive of zero or values close to it. Therefore, the reference is seen to render
the claim obvious.
Additionally, the embodiment of Figure 7 of Francois teaches an area covered by the large pores which is approximately at least 8 times, or approximately, roughly 10
times the area covered by the small pores. Therefore, most certainly "at least" 18% of
the porosity is large pores. Thus, claim 6 is rendered obvious.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Paramban as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application
Publication No. 2015/0052824 to Gebhardt et al. (hereinafter Gebhardt).
Paramban discloses bonded abrasive article comprising agglomerated abrasive
grains, as detailed out above. Although primary or individual abrasive grains, in an
agglomerated abrasive grain, are inevitably held together using a binder, Paramban
does not expressly and/or literally disclose the presence or use of such a binder.
Gebhardt, specifically directed to agglomerate abrasive grains, disclose that such
grains comprise individual abrasive grains, hollow bodies, and a binder (Gebhardt,
abstract). Gebhardt discloses that agglomerated abrasive grains have been known in
the abrasive/grinding industry for a long time, and comprises abrasive grains held
together using a binding matrix (Gebhardt, [0002]). Gebhardt discloses the benefit of
using agglomerated abrasive grains, over the use of individual abrasive grains, which is to provide new cutting edges when one individual grain breaks out of the agglomerated grain, and thus, discloses a long lifetime for agglomerated abrasive grains (Gebhardt, [0003]-[0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Paramban to specifically include that a binding matrix, as that taught by Gebhardt, exists in the agglomerated abrasive grains of Paramban motivated by the fact that agglomerated abrasive grains have been known to comprise a binder or a binding matrix as that taught by Gebhardt.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has asserted that according to samples S1-S4, although the starting materials of all have been the same, sample S4 did not pass the standard burst speed requirement, but S1-S3 did (Remarks, page 5). Applicant has, then, concluded that although Paramban may disclose similar starting materials, it cannot be assumed that it would necessarily result in the claimed burst speed (Remarks, page 5). Thus, Applicant concluded that Paramban cannot render the independent claims obvious.
The examiner, respectfully, submits the claimed mean vibration factor of no greater than 8.25m/s2 and burst speed of at least 18700-D*54 min-1 are claimed to be attributes/properties of the claimed abrasive article. Therefore, considering the fact that Paramban discloses a substantially similar claimed abrasive article, even including some of the preferred materials which are not claimed in independent claims, it is reasonable to envision that the claimed properties/attributes are expected to follow from the reference; Applicant has not submitted evidence proving the contrary. In other words, Applicant has not submitted evidence proving the abrasive article of Paramban, despite meeting the claimed structures and/or components whether claimed in independent claims and/or some dependent claims, is not capable of achieving the claimed mean vibration factor and the claimed burst speed; therefore, Applicant’s argument is not supported with evidence. The samples presented in the original disclosure of the present Application under examination have not been made according to Paramban.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEGAH PARVINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2639. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, AMBER ORLANDO can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/PEGAH PARVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731