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 .
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.
Claims 18-34 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 18 recites the limitation (emphasis added) "flow the adhesive in the first and second adhesive tracks." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (“adhesive in the first and second adhesive tracks” is suggested). While it is recognized that “a first adhesive track” and “a second adhesive track” are recited, there is no specific recitation to “an adhesive” in explicitly said tracks.
Claim 18 recites the limitations (emphasis added) “form the bonds between the first and second gas diffusion layers and the first and second sub-gaskets.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (“form bonds between the first and second gas diffusion layers and the first and second sub-gaskets” is suggested). While it is recognized that “a first adhesive track is provided to bond the first gas diffusion layer to the first sub-gasket” and “a second adhesive track is provided to bond the second gas diffusion layer to the second sub-gasket” are recited, there is not specific recitation to “a bond” explicitly between said gas diffusion layers and said sub-gaskets.
Claim 19 is 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 19 recites the limitation "the through-plane direction." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (“a through-plane direction” is suggested).
Claim 20 is 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 20 recites the limitation "the opposite face." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (“an opposite face” is suggested).
Claim 30 is 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 30 recites the limitation "the sub-gasketed membrane electrode." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (“the sub-gasketed membrane electrode assembly” is suggested).
Claim 32 is 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 32 recites the limitation (emphasis added) "all of the peripheral edges of the first and second sub-gaskets." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (“all peripheral edges of the first and second sub-gaskets” is suggested).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Specifically, Claim 23 recites dependency upon a cancelled claim (i.e. Claim 1).
For purposes of examination, Claim 23 will be interpreted as being dependent from independent Claim 18.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 18-20, 22-26, 29-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2020/0331212), and further in view of Barnett et al. (US 2004/0214071).
Regarding Claim 18, Kim teaches a process of manufacturing a fuel cell part (Abstract, [0002], [0046], [0055]). As illustrated in Figure 2, Kim teaches the fuel cell part (1) comprises a membrane electrode assembly (3) having a sub-gasket (4d) protecting the membrane electrode assembly (i.e. the fuel cell part manufactured by the process is a “sub-gasketed membrane electrode assembly”) ([0066]-[0069]).
As illustrated in Figures 1-2 and 11-17 (and the annotated Figures below), Kim teaches that the process comprises the following steps:
providing an electrocatalyst-coated, sub-gasketed electrolyte membrane (4a) (“sub-gasketed catalyst coated ion-conducting membrane”), wherein said membrane is disposed between an anode electrode layer (4b) and a cathode electrode layer (4c) (“catalyst coated ion-conducting membrane comprising an ion-conducting membrane disposed between first and second electrocatalyst layers”), wherein sub-gasket (4d) has a top “aperture” defined by top inner edges of the sub-gasket and a bottom “aperture” defined by bottom inner edges of the sub-gasket, and wherein the membrane is disposed between the sub-gasket, and wherein the anode and cathode layers are exposed through said apertures to provide first and second active areas respectively ([0006], [0068]-[0069]);
forming an “intermediate construct” by applying an anode gas diffusion layer (5) (“first gas diffusion layer”) and a cathode gas diffusion layer (7) (“second gas diffusion layer”) to opposite faces respectively of the electrocatalyst-coated, sub-gasketed electrolyte membrane over said apertures such that the anode gas diffusion layer overlaps the entire first active area and one or more inner edges of the sub-gasket and such that the cathode gas diffusion layer overlaps the entire second active area and one or more inner edges of the sub-gasket, wherein a first adhesive layer (9, top side of sub-gasket) (‘first adhesive track”) is provided to bond the anode gas diffusion layer to the sub-gasket, and wherein a second adhesive layer (9, bottom side of sub-gasket) is provided to bond the cathode gas diffusion layer to the sub-gasket ([0127]-[0132]); and
applying ultrasonic wave vibration energy (“ultrasonic energy”) to a single face of the intermediate construct to melt and flow adhesive in the first and second adhesive layers, and to form bonds between the anode and cathode diffusion layers and the sub-gasket, thus forming the fuel cell part, wherein the ultrasonic wave vibration energy is only applied (via horn member (55)) over regions in which the first and second adhesive layers are present ([0079], [0093], [0133]-[0134]).
Kim does not explicitly teach that the sub-gasket is formed as a first sub-gasket and a second sub-gasket.
However, Barnett teaches a membrane electrode assembly (Abstract). As illustrated in Figures 7 and 9, Barnett teaches a membrane electrode assembly comprising a polymer membrane (6) coated with electrocatalyst layers (5) on top and bottom surfaces thereof, a top gasket member (2, top), and a bottom gasket member (2, bottom) ([0055], [0057]). As illustrated in Figures 7 and 9, the separate top and bottom gasket members sandwich the polymer membrane therebetween, wherein the use of said separate top and bottom gasket members allows for the polymer member to be sandwiched with or without the top and bottom gaskets remaining in physical contact with one another ([0055], [0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the sub-gasket of Kim as separate top and bottom sub-gaskets (“first sub-gasket” and “second sub-gasket”), as taught by Barnett, given that the use of such separate top and bottom sub-gaskets (as opposed to a single sub-gasket) would allow for the electrolyte membrane (4a) to remain sub-gasketed with or without the accompanying sub-gaskets also remaining in physical contact with one another.
PNG
media_image1.png
587
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
426
600
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
562
419
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 19, Kim, as modified by Barnett, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 18, as previously described.
As illustrated in Figures 1 and 17 of Kim, the ultrasonic wave vibration energy is applied by contacting a horn member (55) (“sonotrode”) with the anode or cathode gas diffusion layer, wherein the horn member follows a path (i.e. the path of a given adhesive layer which is heated/melted by the horn member) on the anode or cathode gas diffusion layer, wherein the path is aligned in a through-plane direction with the first and second adhesive layers.
Regarding Claim 20, Kim, as modified by Barnett, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 18, as previously described.
As illustrated in Figure 16 of Kim, the intermediate construct is supported on a lower die (10) (“horizontally level surface”) present on an opposite face to which the ultrasonic wave vibration energy is applied ([0081]).
Regarding Claim 22, Kim, as modified by Barnett, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 18, as previously described.
As illustrated in Figure 15 of Kim, the electrocatalyst-coated, sub-gasketed electrolyte membrane is provided as a single unit.
Regarding Claim 23, Kim, as modified by Barnett, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 18, as previously described.
As illustrated in Figures 2 and 17 of Kim (and in context of Kim, as modified by Barnett, wherein a top and bottom sub-gasket would be present), the first adhesive layer is provided by “applying the adhesive directly to the first sub-gasket” by virtue of being applied so as to, ultimately, directly contact the top sub-gasket (it is noted that the instant Claim does not recite a particular timing of the provision/application of the adhesive track, or otherwise require that the adhesive track is provided/applied “first” to the sub-gasket, provided/applied “before” contacting another structure such as a gas diffusion layer, etc.).
Regarding Claim 24, Kim, as modified by Barnett, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 18, as previously described.
As illustrated in Figures 2 and 17 of Kim (and in context of Kim, as modified by Barnett, wherein a top and bottom sub-gasket would be present), the second adhesive layer is provided by “applying the adhesive directly to the second sub-gasket” by virtue of being applied so as to, ultimately, directly contact the bottom sub-gasket (it is noted that the instant Claim does not recite a particular timing of the provision/application of the adhesive track, or otherwise require that the adhesive track is provided/applied “first” to the sub-gasket, provided/applied “before” contacting another structure such as a gas diffusion layer, etc.).
Regarding Claim 25, Kim, as modified by Barnett, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 18, as previously described.
As illustrated in Figures 2 and 17 of Kim, the first adhesive layer is provided by “applying the adhesive directly to the first gas diffusion layer” by virtue of being applied so as to, ultimately, directly contact the anode gas diffusion layer (it is noted that the instant Claim does not recite a particular timing of the provision/application of the adhesive track, or otherwise require that the adhesive track is provided/applied “first” to the gas diffusion layer, provided/applied “before” contacting another structure such as a sub-gasket, etc.).
Regarding Claim 26, Kim, as modified by Barnett, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 18, as previously described.
As illustrated in Figures 2 and 17 of Kim, the second adhesive layer is provided by “applying the adhesive directly to the second gas diffusion layer” by virtue of being applied so as to, ultimately, directly contact the cathode gas diffusion layer (it is noted that the instant Claim does not recite a particular timing of the provision/application of the adhesive track, or otherwise require that the adhesive track is provided/applied “first” to the gas diffusion layer, provided/applied “before” contacting another structure such as a sub-gasket, etc.).
Regarding Claim 29, Kim, as modified by Barnett, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 18, as previously described.
As illustrated in Figure 1 of Kim, the first and second adhesive layers comprise “beads” of adhesive (i.e. the first adhesive layer is illustrated as comprising two rectangular beads of adhesive, and the second adhesive layer is illustrated as comprising two rectangular beads of adhesive).
Regarding Claim 30, Kim, as modified by Barnett, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 18, as previously described.
Kim teaches that pressure is applied to the fuel cell during its formation by the horn member ([0134]).
Regarding Claim 31, Kim, as modified by Barnett, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 18, as previously described.
Kim, as modified by Barnett, does not explicitly teach that the electrolyte membrane (4a) does not extend to one or more peripheral edges of the top and bottom sub-gaskets.
However, Barnett teaches a membrane electrode assembly (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 7, Barnett teaches a membrane electrode assembly comprising a polymer membrane (6) coated with electrocatalyst layers (5) on top and bottom surfaces thereof, a top gasket member (2, top), and a bottom gasket member (2, bottom) ([0055]). As illustrated in Figure 7, the separate top and bottom gasket members sandwich the polymer membrane such that it extends between the gasket members without extending to one or more peripheral edges of the gasket members while the electrocatalyst layers are disposed within apertures in the top and bottom gasket members without overlapping any of the inner edges of the gasket members and without extending to said one or more peripheral edges of the gasket members ([0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would construct the electrolyte membrane of Kim, as modified by Barnett, such that it does not extend to one or more peripheral edges of the top and bottom sub-gaskets while the anode and cathode electrode layers remain disposed within the apertures in the top and bottom sub-gaskets without overlapping any of the inner edges of the gasket members and without extending to said one or more peripheral edges of the top and bottom sub-gaskets, as taught by Barnett, given that such a configuration would specifically allow for the electrolyte membrane to be sandwiched with the top and bottom sub-gaskets also remaining in physical contact with one another.
Regarding Claim 32, Kim, as modified by Barnett, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 18, as previously described.
Kim, as modified by Barnett, does not explicitly teach that the electrolyte membrane (4a) extends to all of the peripheral edges of the top and bottom sub-gaskets.
However, Barnett teaches a membrane electrode assembly (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 9, Barnett teaches a membrane electrode assembly comprising a polymer membrane (6) coated with electrocatalyst layers (5) on top and bottom surfaces thereof, a top gasket member (2, top), and a bottom gasket member (2, bottom) ([0057]). As illustrated in Figure 9, the separate top and bottom gasket members sandwich the polymer membrane such that it extends between the gasket members and extends to all of the peripheral edges of the gasket members while the electrocatalyst layers are disposed within apertures in the top and bottom gasket members without overlapping any of the inner edges of the gasket members and without extending to said one or more peripheral edges of the gasket members ([0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would construct the electrolyte membrane of Kim, as modified by Barnett, such that it extends to all of the peripheral edges of the top and bottom sub-gaskets while the anode and cathode electrode layers remain disposed within the apertures in the top and bottom sub-gaskets without overlapping any of the inner edges of the gasket members and without extending to said one or more peripheral edges of the top and bottom sub-gaskets, as taught by Barnett, given that such a configuration would specifically allow for the electrolyte membrane to be sandwiched without the top and bottom sub-gaskets remaining in physical contact with one another.
Regarding Claim 33, Kim, as modified by Barnett, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 18, as previously described.
Kim, as modified by Barnett, does not explicitly teach that the anode and cathode electrode layers are disposed within the apertures in the top and bottom sub-gaskets without overlapping any of the inner edges of the top and bottom sub-gaskets.
However, Barnett teaches a membrane electrode assembly (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 7, Barnett teaches a membrane electrode assembly comprising a polymer membrane (6) coated with electrocatalyst layers (5) on top and bottom surfaces thereof, a top gasket member (2, top), and a bottom gasket member (2, bottom) ([0055]). As illustrated in Figure 7, the separate top and bottom gasket members sandwich the polymer membrane such that it extends between the gasket members without extending to one or more peripheral edges of the gasket members while the electrocatalyst layers are disposed within apertures in the top and bottom gasket members without overlapping any of the inner edges of the gasket members and without extending to said one or more peripheral edges of the gasket members ([0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would construct the electrolyte membrane of Kim, as modified by Barnett, such that it does not extend to one or more peripheral edges of the top and bottom sub-gaskets while the anode and cathode electrode layers remain disposed within the apertures in the top and bottom sub-gaskets without overlapping any of the inner edges of the gasket members and without extending to said one or more peripheral edges of the top and bottom sub-gaskets, as taught by Barnett, given that such a configuration would specifically allow for the electrolyte membrane to be sandwiched with the top and bottom sub-gaskets also remaining in physical contact with one another.
Regarding Claim 34, Kim, as modified by Barnett, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 18, as previously described.
Kim, as modified by Barnett, does not explicitly teach that the anode and cathode electrode layers do not extend to one or more peripheral edges of the top and bottom sub-gaskets.
However, Barnett teaches a membrane electrode assembly (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 7, Barnett teaches a membrane electrode assembly comprising a polymer membrane (6) coated with electrocatalyst layers (5) on top and bottom surfaces thereof, a top gasket member (2, top), and a bottom gasket member (2, bottom) ([0055]). As illustrated in Figure 7, the separate top and bottom gasket members sandwich the polymer membrane such that it extends between the gasket members without extending to one or more peripheral edges of the gasket members while the electrocatalyst layers are disposed within apertures in the top and bottom gasket members without overlapping any of the inner edges of the gasket members and without extending to said one or more peripheral edges of the gasket members ([0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would construct the electrolyte membrane of Kim, as modified by Barnett, such that it does not extend to one or more peripheral edges of the top and bottom sub-gaskets while the anode and cathode electrode layers remain disposed within the apertures in the top and bottom sub-gaskets without overlapping any of the inner edges of the gasket members and without extending to said one or more peripheral edges of the top and bottom sub-gaskets, as taught by Barnett, given that such a configuration would specifically allow for the electrolyte membrane to be sandwiched with the top and bottom sub-gaskets also remaining in physical contact with one another.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2020/0331212), and further in view of Barnett et al. (US 2004/0214071) and Skiba et al. (US 2014/0014254).
Regarding Claim 21, Kim, as modified by Barnett, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 18, as previously described.
Kim, as modified by Barnett, does not explicitly teach that adhesive in the first and second adhesive layers is a hot melt polyolefin adhesive.
Skiba teaches a membrane electrode assembly (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 2, Skiba teaches that layers of the membrane electrode assembly are bonded together by a hot melt adhesive (22, 25, 32, 35) which is subjected to ultrasonic welding ([0002], [0011], [0030]-[0034]). In particular, Skiba teaches that the hot melt adhesive is formed of polyethylene because it is easily melted and free-flowing ([0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the first and second adhesive layers of Kim, as modified by Barnett, out of a polyethylene hot melt adhesive (“hot melt polyolefin adhesive”), as taught by Skiba, given that polyethylene is easily melted and free-flowing when subjected to ultrasonic wave vibration energy.
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2020/0331212), and further in view of Barnett et al. (US 2004/0214071) and Song et al. (US 2013/0071768).
Regarding Claim 27, Kim, as modified by Barnett, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 18, as previously described.
Kim, as modified by Barnett, does not explicitly teach that the first adhesive layer fully surrounds the aperture in the top sub-gasket.
However, Song teaches a membrane electrode assembly (Abstract). As illustrated in Figures 6-8, Song teaches that the membrane comprises anode and cathode edge protection layers (44, 54) which sandwich an electrolyte membrane (21) therebetween, wherein anode and cathode gas diffusion layers (41, 51) are positioned over anode and cathode catalyst layers (42, 52) while also being adhered to a surface a respective anode or cathode edge protection layer ([0079]). In particular, Song teaches that an anode adhesive layer (83) is formed so as to fully surround an aperture in the anode edge protection layer in which the anode catalyst layer is positioned ([0081]-[0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the first adhesive layer of Kim, as modified by Barnett, such that it fully surrounds the aperture in the top sub-gasket, as taught by Song, given that such a configuration would increase the level of adhesion between the top sub-gasket and the anode gas diffusion layer in regions around the entire perimeter of the top sub-gasket.
Regarding Claim 27, Kim, as modified by Barnett, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 18, as previously described.
Kim, as modified by Barnett, does not explicitly teach that the second adhesive layer fully surrounds the aperture in the bottom sub-gasket.
However, Song teaches a membrane electrode assembly (Abstract). As illustrated in Figures 6-8, Song teaches that the membrane comprises anode and cathode edge protection layers (44, 54) which sandwich an electrolyte membrane (21) therebetween, wherein anode and cathode gas diffusion layers (41, 51) are positioned over anode and cathode catalyst layers (42, 52) while also being adhered to a surface a respective anode or cathode edge protection layer ([0079]). In particular, Song teaches that a cathode adhesive layer (93) is formed so as to fully surround an aperture in the cathode edge protection layer in which the cathode catalyst layer is positioned ([0085]-[0086]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the second adhesive layer of Kim, as modified by Barnett, such that it fully surrounds the aperture in the bottom sub-gasket, as taught by Song, given that such a configuration would increase the level of adhesion between the bottom sub-gasket and the cathode gas diffusion layer in regions around the entire perimeter of the bottom sub-gasket.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST M-F.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728