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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/09/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In reference to claim 21, it is suggested to amend “a compressive strength”, in lines 1-2, to “the compressive strength”, in order to ensure consistency and proper antecedent basis in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-12 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. (US 6,673,415) (Yamazaki) in view of Kramer et al. (US 2011/0196055) (Kramer), with claims 2 and 3 in the alternative rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Yamazaki in view of Kramer further in view of Wang et al. (US 5,338,594) (Wang).
In reference to claims 1 and 8, Yamazaki teaches a honeycomb core material for a sandwich structure (col. 1, lines 7-8) (corresponding to a composite material). The honeycomb core material includes a honeycomb body and a filler filled in at least a part of cells thereof (col. 1, lines 57-60) (corresponding to a structural support having a plurality of cavities; and filling the plurality of cavities). The filler is a composite foam comprising a urethane prepolymer (col. 1, lines 62-67) (corresponding to a polymeric foam filling the plurality of cavities).
Yamazaki further teaches the thickness of the partition walls of the honeycomb body is preferably from 0.02 to 3 mm (col. 3, lines 6-9) (corresponding to walls of the structural support have a thickness of about 0.5 mm to about 5 mm). The compression strength of the sandwich panel is 4.6 kgf/cm2 (i.e., 65.4 psi) (Table 1, Ex. 7) (corresponding to the composite material has a compressive strength of 60 psi to 200 psi).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Yamazaki does not explicitly teach the composite foam filler has a density less than 5 pcf, as presently claimed. However, Yamazaki teaches the composite foam is a rigid foam includes a polyisocyanate, a polyol, a blowing agent and a catalyst in order to control curing speed (col. 4, lines 64-col. 5, line 1; col.7, line 49-col. 11, line 29).
Kramer teaches a cavity-filling closed cell rigid polyurethane foam used for insulation ([0002]; Abstract) (corresponding to the polymeric foam comprises polyurethane). The foam has a density of less than about 40 kg/m3 (i.e., less than about 2.5 pcf) ([0014]; [0062]). The broadest reasonable interpretation of “about 40 kg/m3” would encompass values ±10% of 40 kg/m3 (i.e., 2.75 pcf) (corresponding to the polymeric foam has a density of 2.75 to 3.5 pcf).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Kramer further teaches the formulation enables efficient, cost effective production of closed cell rigid polyurethane foams that attain desirable molded densities and insulation factors while filling a cavity without voids and at the same time offering good mechanical properties ([0013]).
In light of the motivation of Kramer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the composite foam of Yamazaki be the cavity-filling closed cell rigid polyurethane foam, in order to provide an efficient cost effective polyurethane foam that attains desirable molded densities and insulation factors while filling the cavities of the honeycomb material without voids while offering food mechanical properties.
In reference to claims 2-4 and 9-12, Yamazaki in view of Kramer teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Yamazaki further teaches a material of the honeycomb body may be meal, paper, a composite material of a fiber and a resin or a plastic (col. 3, lines 20-23) (corresponding to the structural support comprises a polymer, a fiber, a metal, or a combination thereof). The geometrical cells of the honeycomb core material are of a polygonal shape or a circular shape (col. 2, lines 46-50; Fig. 1) (corresponding to each cavity of the plurality of cavities of the structural support has a circular shape of a polygonal shape).
The thickness of the honeycomb body maybe not more than 50 mm and at least 40 mm (col. 3, lines 10-17; col. 17, lines 18; claim 1) (corresponding to the structural support has a thickness of about 20 mm to about 50 mm). Given that the honeycomb core material includes the honeycomb body and the filler, it is clear the honeycomb core materials thickness is the thickness of the honeycomb body, which is not more than 50 mm and at least 40 mm (i.e., not more than 1.9685 and at least 1.5748 inches) (col. 3, lines 10-17; claim 1) (corresponding to the composite structure has a thickness oof about 0.25 inches to about 3 inches). Fig. 1 shows the honeycomb body has a rectangular shape (corresponding to the composite material has a rectangular shape).
Yamazaki further teaches an inorganic filler may be incorporated in the foam (col. 11, lines 30-31) (corresponding to the polymeric foam comprises an inorganic filler). An amount of inorganic filler is from 10 to 500 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the phosphorus containing acid material (a) (col. 11, lines 42-45). The content of the phosphorus containing acid material (a) in the foam is from 3 to 20 wt % (col. 6, lines 11-12). Thus, the amount of inorganic filler is from 0.3 to 15 wt% in the foam (i.e., 10g/(100g/3wt%) = 0.3 wt% 500g/(100g/3wt%) = 15 wt%) (corresponding to an inorganic filler present in an amount up to 60% by weight, relative to a total weight of the polymeric foam).
Given that the honeycomb core material of Yamazaki in view of Kramer is substantially identical to the present claimed composite material in composition and structure, it is clear the honeycomb core material of Yamazaki in view of Kramer would intrinsically have an average density of 3 pcf to 10 pcf.
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). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Alternatively, while Yamazaki in view of Kramer does not explicitly teach the honeycomb core material has an average density of 1 pcf to 20 pcf, as presently claimed. However, Yamazaki teaches the honeycomb core material is sandwiched for interior or exterior panels for aircrafts (col. 1, lines 12-17).
Wang teaches a high strength foam-filled material including a cellular structure comprising a plurality of open-ended cells containing foam (Abstract). The foam-filled honeycomb structure has a density of from about 5 pcf to about 10 pcf (col. 5, lines 42-45) (corresponding to the composite material has an average density of 3 pcf to 10 pcf). Wang further teaches foam filled honeycomb shaped structures have utility as light weight insulation and structural materials in the aerospace industry (col. 1, lines 18-22).
In light of the disclosure by Wang of using a foam-filled material having a density from about 5 pcf to about 10 pcf for aerospace applications, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the honeycomb core material of Yamazaki in view of Kramer, for aircraft components, have a density of about 5 pcf to about 10 pcf, in order to provide a lightweight and high strength sandwich panels.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
In reference to claim 21, Yamazaki in view of Kramer teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Yamazaki further teaches a compressive strength of the honeycomb core material can be 15.2 kgf/cm2 (i.e., 216 psi).
The only deficiency of Yamazaki in view of Kramer is that Yamazaki in view of Kramer disclose the a compressive strength of 216 psi while the present claims require a compressive strength of 200 psi.
It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed compressive strength of 200 psi and that taught by Yamazaki in view of Kramer are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a “slight” difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”.
In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a “slight” difference between the compressive strength of 216 psi disclosed by Yamazaki in view of Kramer and the amount disclosed in the present claims and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed in the present invention with respect to the compressive strength of 200 psi, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the compressive strength 200 psi disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the compressive strength disclosed in Yamazaki in view of Kramer, and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
In reference to claim 22, Yamazaki teaches a honeycomb core material for a sandwich structure (col. 1, lines 7-8) (corresponding to a composite material). The honeycomb core material includes a honeycomb body and a filler filled in at least a part of cells thereof (col. 1, lines 57-60) (corresponding to a structural support having a plurality of cavities; and filling the plurality of cavities). The filler is a composite foam comprising a urethane prepolymer (col. 1, lines 62-67) (corresponding to a polymeric foam filling the plurality of cavities).
Yamazaki further teaches the thickness of the partition walls of the honeycomb body is preferably from 0.02 to 3 mm (col. 3, lines 6-9) (corresponding to walls of the structural support have a thickness of about 0.5 mm to about 5 mm). The compression strength of the sandwich panel is 15.2 kgf/cm2 (i.e., 216 psi) (Table 1, Ex. 8) (corresponding to the composite material has a compressive strength of 80 psi to 200 psi).
While Yamazaki teaches the compression strength of the panel is 216 psi and the presents claims require a compressive strength of 200 psi. It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed compressive strength of 200 psi and that taught by Yamazaki are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a “slight” difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”.
In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a “slight” difference between the compressive strength of 216 psi disclosed by Yamazaki and the amount disclosed in the present claims and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed in the present invention with respect to the compressive strength of 200 psi, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the compressive strength 200 psi disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the compressive strength disclosed in Yamazaki, and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Yamazaki does not explicitly teach the composite foam filler has a density less than 5 pcf, as presently claimed. However, Yamazaki teaches the composite foam is a rigid foam includes a polyisocyanate, a polyol, a blowing agent and a catalyst in order to control curing speed (col. 4, lines 64-col. 5, line 1; col.7, line 49-col. 11, line 29).
Kramer teaches a cavity-filling closed cell rigid polyurethane foam used for insulation ([0002]; Abstract) (corresponding to the polymeric foam comprises polyurethane). The foam has a density of less than about 40 kg/m3 (i.e., less than about 2.5 pcf) ([0014]; [0062]) (corresponding to the polymeric foam has a density less than 5 pcf).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Kramer further teaches the formulation enables efficient, cost effective production of closed cell rigid polyurethane foams that attain desirable molded densities and insulation factors while filling a cavity without voids and at the same time offering good mechanical properties ([0013]).
In light of the motivation of Kramer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the composite foam of Yamazaki be the cavity-filling closed cell rigid polyurethane foam, in order to provide an efficient cost effective polyurethane foam that attains desirable molded densities and insulation factors while filling the cavities of the honeycomb material without voids while offering food mechanical properties.
Claims 1-4, 8-12 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pherson (US 2014/0096708) in view of Yamazaki.
In reference to claims 1, 12 and 21-22, Pherson teaches a composite pallet ([0005]) (corresponding to a composite material). The pallet comprises a composite panel, the composite panel includes a sandwich structure having a core ([0016]). The core comprises a foam material such as polyurethane foam ([0017]).
Pherson further teaches the core includes a honeycomb structure filled with the foam ([0021]) (corresponding to a structural support having a plurality of cavities; a polymeric foam filling the plurality of cavities). The polyurethane foam has a density between about 0.75 lbs/ft3 and about 20 lbs/ft3 ([0018]) (corresponding to the polymeric foam has a density of 2.75 pcf to 3.5 pcf; the polymeric foam has a density less than 5 pcf). The core has a compressive strength of between 5 and 3000 psi ([0019]) (corresponding to the composite material has a compressive strength of 60 psi to 200 psi; the composite material has a compressive strength of 80 psi to 200 psi).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Pherson does not explicitly teach the honeycomb structure includes walls having a thickness of about 0.5 mm to about 5 mm, as presently claimed.
Yamazaki teaches a honeycomb core material for a sandwich structure (col. 1, lines 7-8). The sandwich structure includes a honeycomb body and a filler filled in at least a part of the cells (col. 1, lines 57-60). The honeycomb body includes a plurality of geometrical cells, the cells have a polygonal shape (col. 2, lines 46-52) (corresponding to each cavity of the plurality of cavities of the structural support has a circular shape or a polygonal shape). The cell size and the porosity of the honeycomb body relate to the rigidity of the honeycomb core material (col. 2, lines 52-54). The thickness of the partition wall is inversely proportional to the porosity and is preferably from 0.02 to 3 mm (col. 3, lines 6-9) (corresponding to walls of the structural support that form the plurality of cavities have a thickness of about 0.5 mm to about 5 mm).
In light of the motivation of Yamazaki, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have the honeycomb structure of Pherson be the honeycomb body of Yamazaki, in order to provide a honeycomb structure that allows for filling of the honeycomb structure and ensure desirable strength and rigidity in the honeycomb structure (Yamazaki, col. 2, line 52 – col. 3, line 9).
In reference to claims 2 and 3, Pherson in view of Yamazaki teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Pherson further teaches the foam core is a honeycomb filled honeycomb, wherein the foam core has a density between 0.75 and 20 lbs/ft3 (claims 5 and 7; [0021]; [0018]) (corresponding to the composite material has an average density of 3 pcf to 10 pcf).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
In reference to claim 4, Pherson in view of Yamazaki teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Pherson in view of Yamazaki further teaches the material of the honeycomb structure may be metal, paper, flame retardant paper, a composite material of fiber and resin, plastic or ceramic paper (Yamazaki, col. 3, lines 20-23) (corresponding to the structural support comprises a polymer, a fiber, a metal, or a combination thereof).
In reference to claim 8, Pherson in view of Yamazaki teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Pherson teaches the foam material is a polyurethan foam ([0017]) (corresponding to the polymeric foam comprises polyurethane or polyvinylchloride).
In reference to claim 9, Pherson in view of Yamazaki teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Pherson in view of Yamazaki further teaches adding an inorganic filler to the foam in order to improve the tensile strength or bending strength of the foam (Yamazaki, col. 11, lines 30-42). An amount of inorganic filler is from 10 to 500 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the phosphorus containing acid material (col. 11, lines 42-45). The content of the phosphorus containing acid material (a) in the foam is from 3 to 20 wt % (col. 6, lines 11-12). Thus, the amount of inorganic filler is from 0.3 to 15 wt% in the foam (i.e., 10g/(100g/3wt%) = 0.3 wt% 500g/(100g/3wt%) = 15 wt%) (corresponding to an inorganic filler present in an amount up to 60% by weight, relative to a total weight of the polymeric foam).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to include 0.3 to 15 wt% of inorganic filler in the foam of Pherson in view of Yamazaki, in order to improve the tensile strength or bending strength of the foam.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
In reference to claim 10, Pherson in view of Yamazaki teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Pherson in view of Yamazaki teaches a thickness of the honeycomb structure is suitably selected depending upon the required mechanical properties, thermal insulating properties, noise insulating properties and fire prevention properties (Yamazaki, col. 3, lines 10-13). The thickness maybe not more than 50 mm (Yamazaki, col. 3, lines 10-15) (corresponding to the structural support has a thickness of about 20 mm to about 50 mm). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the presently claimed invention to have the thickness of the honeycomb structure be not more than 50 mm, in order to provide the required mechanical properties, thermal insulating properties, noise insulating properties and fire prevention properties to the panel.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
In reference to claim 11, Pherson in view of Yamazaki teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. FIG. 1 shows the panel has a rectangular shape (corresponding to the composite material has a rectangular shape). Pherson teaches the core is a honeycomb structure filled with the foam ([0021]). Thus it is clear the core will have a thickness corresponding to the thickness of the honeycomb structure.
Pherson in view of Yamazaki teaches a thickness of the honeycomb structure is suitably selected depending upon the required mechanical properties, thermal insulating properties, noise insulating properties and fire prevention properties (Yamazaki, col. 3, lines 10-13). The thickness maybe not more than 50 mm (Yamazaki, col. 3, lines 10-15) (corresponding to a thickness of about 0.25 inches to about 3 inches). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the presently claimed invention to have the thickness of the honeycomb structure be not more than 50 mm (i.e., 1.97 inches), in order to provide the required mechanical properties, thermal insulating properties, noise insulating properties and fire prevention properties to the panel.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant primarily argue:
“The Office Action concedes that ‘Yamazaki does not explicitly teach the composite foam filler has a density less than 5 pcf’ and cites Kramer as allegedly disclosing a rigid polyurethane foam having ‘a density of less than about 40 kg/m3 (i.e., about 2.5 pcf).’ Office Action at p. 4. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Kramer’s disclosure of ‘about 40 kg/m3’ does not read on 2.75 pcf. Kramer does not define the term ‘about’ as used throughout its disclosure, however, under the examiner’s conception of the term ‘about’ to mean +/- 10%, Kramer's disclosure would read to 44 kg/m3 (i.e., 2.7468 pcf). Wang does not cure the deficiencies of Yamazaki and Kramer.”
Remarks, p. 7
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
As the Applicant noted, Kramer reads on 44 kg/m3, a value when converted to pfc and taken to the second decimal point is 2.75 pcf. Therefore, Kramer teaches a polymeric foam having a density that overlaps with the lower limit of the presently claimed polymeric foam.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, namely Ashmead et al. (US 6,387,200), Kaspersion (US 2009/0162548), Metz et al. (US 2011/0223372), Dikeman et al. (US 2018/0194917) and Zhou et al. (CN 109941300), is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. However, the rejections using these references would be cumulative to the rejections of record set forth above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary I Omori whose telephone number is (571)270-1203. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/MARY I OMORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784