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
Applicant’s amendment correcting a minor informality in claim 16 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-16 in the reply filed on January 8, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17 and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 8, 2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Please delete the numbered, blank paragraphs from the filed specification. Note how the presence of numbered, blank paragraphs caused publication issues in the publication of the present application US20230326672A1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Please replace the period “.” In “1 to 2.” of claim 14 with any of a comma “,”, semicolon “;” or colon “,”. Claim 14 should only have one concluding “.”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The word “it” on the last line of claim 6 will be interpreted as referring to “the ribbon” on the last line of claim 6.
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 1-6 and 9-16 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 1 recites the limitations "the rare earth metals included in Re1” and “the rare earth metals included in Re2" in the last two lines of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Re1—Fe—B and Re2—Fe—B compositions do not necessarily include rare earth metals.
Claims 2-6 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) because they depend on claim 1 and do not resolve the uncertainty. Claims 7 and 8 are not rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for dependence on claim 1 because claim 7 resolves the uncertainty in claiming Re1 and Re2 include one or more rare earth metals, and claim 8 depends on claim 7.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Otsuka (US4898625).
Regarding claim 1, Otsuka discloses a method for manufacturing a multi-main-phase (magnetic particles distributed in a small amount of solid solution phase) structure magnet (abstract, column 2 lines 56-66, column 3 lines 13-26). Otsuka discloses preparing a mixed powder by mixing a first powder (rapidly quenched alloy powder) and a second powder (R2Fe14B alloy powder) (column 3 lines 31-33, column 5 lines 37-43, column 6 lines 60-65, column 7 lines 55-60, column 8 lines 32-40, column 9 lines 3-8, column 10 lines 20-22, column 11 lines 3-8, column 11 line 66 to column 12 line 3, column 12 lines 53-58, column 13 lines 30-34, column 14 lines 31-34, column 15 lines 62-65 column 17 lines 39-43, column 18 line 67 to column 19 line 3, column 19 lines 45-51, column 20 lines 34-39, 45-49, claim 1). Otsuka teaches that the first powder (rapidly quenched alloy powder) has a composition of Re1—Fe—B (column 3 lines 52-58, column 4 lines 12-20, Tables 2, 10, 14, 16, 23, 33, 35, claims 1, 4-6). Otsuka discloses that the second powder (R2Fe14B alloy powder) has a composition of Re2—Fe—B (column 3 lines 44-52, Tables 1, 6, 7, 14, 24, claim 1). Otsuka discloses manufacturing the mixed powder into an anisotropic bulk magnet by performing anisotropic bulking of the mixed powder (compacting to a compact body in a magnetic field, column 5 lines 42-46, column 7 lines 15-17, 60-63, column 8 lines 41-43, column 9 lines 21-22, column 10 lines 20-25, column 11 lines 21-22, column 12 lines 3-7, column 13 lines 16-20, 34-36, column 14 lines 17-19, 34-36, column 15 lines 63-66, column 19 lines 50-53). Otsuka discloses examples wherein rare earth metals included in Re1 include Dy and Re2 includes Nd (Examples 9, 12 13, 15, 16, 17; the description of example 9 starts column 11 line 46, and Example 17 ends column 15 line 17). Otsuka discloses one example wherein Re1 includes Pr and Re2 includes Nd (Example 10 column 12 lines 35-41). Otsuka discloses examples wherein Re1 includes Tb and Re2 includes Nd (Examples 11, 14 column 12 lines 42-50, column 13 lines 56-63). Examples 9-17 of Otsuka each is a method wherein a rare earth metal included in Re1 is different from a rare earth metal included in Re2 in type. Every example of Otsuka further discloses that first or second powders differ in the weight percentage of rare earth element metal (Nd, Dy, Pr, Tb) and/or differ in the volume fractions of first and second powders (Examples start column 5 line 35 and continue to the recitation of claims on column 21 line 8); therefore, the rare earth element content in the first and second powders disclosed by Otsuka differ.
Regarding claim 2, Otsuka discloses that the first powder (rapidly quenched alloy powder) has some degree of fine crystallinity (column 3 lines 9-12). Otsuka discloses that the second powder is R2Fe14B powder (column 3 lines 44-52), and that a R2Fe14B particle is to some extent crystalline (column 14 lines 57-58, column 16 lines 50-52). Otsuka therefore discloses that both first and second powders are to some extent, crystalline.
Regarding claim 4, Otsuka discloses that crystal grains of such powder materials have a grain diameter of 1 µm or less (column 3 lines 9-12). Note that a powder particle comprises a plurality of metallurgical grains, and the 3-5 µm disclosed by Otsuka is the particle size (column 5 lines 43-46), not grain size.
Regarding claim 5, Otsuka discloses examples, wherein the first and second powder are mixed at 11.6% by weight first powder and 88.4% by weight (Example 6, 7 column 9 lines 56-58, column 10 lines 20-22), which yields a ratio of first powder to second powder of 1:7.62. 1:7.62 lies within a range from 9:1 (algebraically equivalent to 1:0.111) to 1:9 because 7.62 is within the range 0.111 to 9. Note that for a two component system a range of ratios of first component to second component of 1:9 to 9:1 by weight is algebraically equivalent to a range of 10-90% by weight of the first component. Otsuka broadly discloses that the first and second powder are mixed to 70% or less by volume of the first powder (claim 1, column 3 lines 58-60). Though, 70% or less by volume is a ratio that scales by volume, considering the breadth of the 70% or less by volume disclosed by Otsuka (claim 1, column 3 lines 58-60) and the 10-90% mixing ratio by weight of claim 5, the range of mixing ratios encompassed by Otsuka’s disclosure would substantially overlap the range of mixing ratios encompassed by claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Otsuka discloses that the first powder and the second powder are each independently prepared (claim 1) through steps of preparing an alloy having a composition of Re1—Fe—B (abstract, column 5 lines 14-21, column 9 lines 33-36, column 11 lines 48-55, claim 1). Otsuka discloses preparing a ribbon by melting and then quenching the alloy (powder prepared from a rapidly-quenched alloy ribbon of R-T-B abstract; column 3 lines 52-56, column 5 lines 14-21, column 9 lines 33-36, column 11 lines 48-55). Otsuka discloses pulverizing the ribbon to powder the ribbon (abstract; column 3 lines 52-56, column 5 lines 14-21, column 9 lines 33-36, column 11 lines 48-55, claim 1). Note that claim 6 may be met by preparing only one of the two types of composition as a ribbon, provided that first and second powders are prepared independently due to the word “or” in the third line of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, every example of Otsuka discloses that each Re1 and Re2, prior to mixing, and therefore to some extent independently, include Nd, Pr, Dy, or Tb (Examples start column 5 line 35 and continue to the recitation of claims on column 21 line 8). Further, as the list recited in claim 7 includes every rare earth element, Otsuka’s broad disclosure of rare earth elements in first and second powders (abstract, column 3 lines 44-56, claim 1) would meet the limitations of claim 7. Claim 7, as worded, does not require that Re1 and Re2 comprise different rare earth metals; however, if claim 7 were narrowed to require Re1and Re2 comprise different rare earth metals, Examples 9-17 of Otsuka would meet this limitation (column 11 line 46 to column 15 line 17).
Regarding claim 15, Otsuka discloses a step of performing post-heat treatment after the step of manufacturing the mixed powder into the magnet (column 5 line 67 to column 6 line 1, column 7 lines 14-16, 64-65, column 8 lines 43-44, column 9 lines 22-24, 59-61, column 10 lines 27-28, column 12 lines 10-12, column 13 lines 18-20, 36-38, column 14 lines 17-19, column 15 lines 67-68).
Regarding claim 16, Otsuka discloses examples wherein: the heat treatment is performed at 500-600
°
C for 60 minutes (one hour) (column 5 line 67 to column 6 line 1); the heat treatment is performed at 500-700
°
C for 60 minutes (one hour) (column 7 lines 64-65, column 9 lines 22-24, 59-61, column 10 lines 27-28); the heat treatment is performed at 500-700
°
C for 120 minutes (two hours) (column 13 lines 36-38); the heat treatment is performed at 500-700
°
C for 60-300 minutes (1-5 hours) (column 12 lines 10-12) the heat treatment is performed at 700-800
°
C for 30-600 minutes (0.5-10 hours) (column 15 lines 67-68). Cited examples of Otsuka (column 5 line 67 to column 6 line 1, column 7 lines 64-65, column 9 lines 22-24, 59-61, column 10 lines 27-28, column 13 lines 36-38, column 12 lines 10-12, column 15 lines 67-68) directly meet the parameters recited in claim 16.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka (US4898625) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Otsuka discloses that the first powder comprises some amorphous structure (column 3 lines 9-12). Otsuka discloses that the second powder comprises some crystalline structure (column 3 lines 44-52, column 14 lines 57-58, column 16 lines 50-52), but Otsuka does not disclose that the second powder comprises some amorphous structure. Otsuka discloses that melting and quenching a R—T—B composition results in an amorphous phase (column 2 lines 12-18, column 3 lines 44-52, column 14 lines 57-58, column 16 lines 50-52). Otsuka discloses producing the second powder by melting constituents which meet a R—T—B composition, wherein R2Fe14B is the main, but not necessarily the only phase (column 4 line 62 to column 5 line 3, column 7 lines 31-40), and Otsuka discloses that mixing amorphous first powder with the R2Fe14B second powder results in favorable magnetic properties (column 7 lines 14-31). Considering Otsuka discloses producing the second powder comprises melting constituents of a R—Fe—B composition (column 4 line 62 to column 5 line 3, column 7 lines 31-40), that an R—Fe—B structure can form an amorphous phase when cooling from melting (column 2 lines 12-18, column 3 lines 44-52, column 14 lines 57-58, column 16 lines 50-52) and that addition of amorphous constituents to yields favorable magnetic properties in combination with the R-2Fe14B structure (column 7 lines 14-31), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include some amorphous structure in the second (R2Fe14B) powder, disclosed by Otsuka, applied above.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka (US4898625) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Ito (US20180308633).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Otsuka discloses that the second powder has at least one rare earth metal (abstract, column 3 lines 44-56, claim 1), which is open to a combination of Nd and Ce. Otsuka does not disclose that the Re2 of the second powder has or that the powder is mixed to a composition Nd and Ce with amounts recited in either claim 8 or 9.
Ito teaches a method for manufacturing a multi-phase structure magnet [0015], [0041]. Ito teaches preparing a mixed powder by mixing a powder having a composition of (R4pR5q)100-uM2u (abstract, [0021], [0028], [0089], [0104], [0108]) with a powder having a composition of (R1vR2wR3x)yTzBsM1t [0018], [0020], [0062-63], [0096], [0112]. In Ito, wherein R4 is one or more members selected from the group consisting of Sc, Ce, La, and Y [0021]; R5 is one or more members selected from the group consisting of Nd, Pr, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, and Lu [0021]; R1 is one or more members selected from the group consisting of Sc, Ce, La, and Y [0018]; R2 is one or more members selected from the group consisting of Nd, Pr, Sm, Eu, and Gd [0018]; R3 is one or more members selected from the group consisting of Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, and Lu [0018], and T is one or more members selected from the group consisting of Fe, Ni, and Co [0018]. Ito teaches that 0≤p≤0.2, 0.8≤q≤1.0 [0021] and 0.1≤v≤1.0, 0≤w≤0.9 [0018]. Ito teaches that Ce, La, and Y are inexpensive relative to other rare earth elements [0006]. Ito teaches that a greater proportion of Sc, Ce, La, and Y, relative to other rare earths, improves an effect of enhancing the coercive force while suppressing the reduction of magnetization [0071-72]. Ito teaches performing anisotropic bulking of the mixed powder [0033], [0117].
Both Ito and Otsuka teach similar processes for obtaining rare earth magnets.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to include Ce as a constituent of the second powder disclosed by Otsuka applied above because Ito teaches that Ce is less expensive in relation to other rare earth metals [0006] and that Ce can improve an effect of enhancing the coercive force while suppressing the reduction of magnetization [0071-72]. As every example of the second (R2Fe14B) powder disclosed by Otsuka comprises Nd (Examples start column 5 line 35 and continue to the recitation of claims on column 21 line 8), and Ito teaches adding Ce in addition to Nd [0018], in adding the Ce, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the Ce in addition to Nd. In adding the Ce and Nd, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the Ce in a proportion of 0.1≤v≤1.0 Ce and 0≤w≤0.9 Nd as taught by Ito to achieve the favorable results [0018], [0071-72]. Proportions of Nd0-0.9Ce0.1-1 overlaps compositions of Nd1-xCex, where x is 0.2 to 1. Further as Otsuka discloses examples wherein the first alloy component does not comprise Nd (Examples 9-17 column 11 line 46 to column 15 line 17), combining Otsuka and Ito, as applied above would comprise compositions wherein all Nd and Ce are supplied by the second powder. An atomic ratio of Nd:Ce of 0-0.9:0.1-1.0 is algebraically equivalent to ranges of a Nd:Ce ratio of 0-9:1-10 which overlaps the range of ratios recited in claim 9. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, and generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05(I-II).
Claim(s) 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka (US4898625) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kano (US10192679). Kano is cited in the IDS filed February 1, 2023.
Regarding claim 10, Otsuka discloses performing sintering (column 3 lines 61-64), but Otsuka does not disclose performing hot deformation.
Kano teaches a method for manufacturing a multi-phase structure magnet (abstract, column 2 lines 48-64). Kano teaches preparing a powder having a composition of R—Fe—B (column 5 line 65 to column 6 line 22, column 8 lines 5-15). Kano teaches performing pressure sintering on the prepared powder to form a compact (column 6 lines 9-15, column 8 lines 16-26). Kano teaches performing hot deformation on the sintered compact, and that the hot deformation is an anisotropic bulking (impart anisotropy on the compact) (column 6 lines 46-50, column 7 lines 5-10, column 8 lines 30-35, column 9 lines 57-65, column 10 lines 1-9) Kano teaches that the hot deformation reduces misorientation and aligns grains in the overall body (column 3 lines 35-51, column 4 lines 45-49, column 7 lines 11-21), and Kano teaches that the preferable orientation in the hot deformation yields superior magnetic properties (column 4 lines 45-49, column 7 lines 11-21).
Both Kano and Otsuka teach similar processes for producing multi-phase magnets from R—Fe—B powder material.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to form the compact from the R—Fe—B powder mixture disclosed by Otsuka applied above by pressure sintering and then performing a hot deformation step because Kano teaches that performing pressure sintering and hot deformation on powder mixture yields favorable magnetic properties and microstructure orientation (column 3 lines 35-51, column 4 lines 45-49, column 5 line 65 to column 6 line 22, column 6 lines 46-50, column 7 lines 5-21, column 8 lines 5-15, 30-35, column 9 lines 57-65, column 10 lines 1-9). As Otsuka discloses anisotropic bulking in compacting (column 5 lines 42-46, column 7 lines 15-17, 60-63, column 8 lines 41-43, column 9 lines 21-22, column 10 lines 20-25, column 11 lines 21-22, column 12 lines 3-7, column 13 lines 16-20, 34-36, column 14 lines 17-19, 34-36, column 15 lines 63-66, column 19 lines 50-53), and Kano teaches that the hot deformation results in anisotropic bulking (column 3 lines 35-51, column 4 lines 45-49, column 6 lines 46-50, column 7 lines 11-21) both the pressure sintering and the hot deformation of the combination of Otsuka in view of Kano are steps of anisotropic bulking.
Regarding claim 11, in examples, Kano teaches that pressure sintering is performed by pressurization to 400 MPa at a temperature of 650° C (column 8 lines 21-26). In order to attain the favorable magnetic properties of the pressure sintering and hot deformation taught by Kano, as applied to claim 10, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the production parameters which Kano teaches for a magnet which yields the results taught by Kano applied above. In applying the production parameters, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to pressurize to 400 MPa for sintering at 650
°
C, as taught by Kano (column 8 lines 21-26). 400 MPa at 650
°
C meets the parameter limitations recited in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Kano teaches examples wherein the hot deformation process is carried out at a temperature of 800
°
C (column 8 lines 30-35, column 9 lines 57-65, column 10 lines 1-18). Kano teaches one example wherein hot deformation is performed at 100 MPa (column 9 lines 57-65), one example wherein hot deformation is performed at 250 MPa (column 10 lines 1-9), and one example wherein hot deformation is performed at 500 MPa (column 10 lines 10-15). 500 to 900° C. under a pressure of 20 to 500 MPa. In order to attain the favorable magnetic properties of the pressure sintering and hot deformation taught by Kano, as applied to claim 10, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the production parameters which Kano teaches for a magnet which yields the results taught by Kano applied above. In applying the production parameters, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to perform the hot deformation at 800
°
C and pressures of 100, 250, and 500 MPa as taught by Kano (column 8 lines 30-35, column 9 lines 57-65, column 10 lines 1-18). A temperature of 800
°
C and pressures of 100, 250, and 500 MPa meet the parameters of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Kano exemplifies hot deformation which is hot extrusion (column 8 lines 30-35, column 10 lines 1-18) and hot deformation which is hot forging (column 9 lines 57-65). In order to achieve the results of the pressure sintering and hot deformation taught by Kano, applied to claim 10 above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the hot deformation by the mechanisms which Kano teaches for achieving those results; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to perform hot deformation which is hot forging or hot extrusion.
Regarding claim 14, in examples, Kano teaches that the engineering strain is 70% (column 9 lines 57-65, column 10 lines 1-18). Though claim 14 recites a true strain and not an engineering strain, the formula for engineering strain (
e
) can still be used to calculate
h
0
/
h
:
e
=
h
0
-
h
h
0
=
1
-
h
h
0
; therefore,
h
h
0
=
1
-
e
, and
h
0
h
=
1
1
-
e
. As 70% is equal to 0.70, Kano teaches a ratio of
h
0
h
=
1
1
-
0.70
=
10
3
. As
ln
10
3
=
1.20
, examples taught by Kano have a true strain
ϵ
=
ln
h
0
h
=
1.20
(column 9 lines 57-65, column 10 lines 1-18). In order to achieve the results of the pressure sintering and hot deformation taught by Kano, applied to claim 10 above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the hot deformation at the parameters which Kano teaches for achieving those results; therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a true strain
ϵ
=
ln
h
0
h
=
1.20
as taught by Kano (engineering strain of 70% column 9 lines 57-65, column 10 lines 1-18). 1.20 lies within the claimed range of 1 to 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP2016111136A discloses a rare earth magnet with a composition of (CexNd(1- x))yFe(100-ywzv)CowBzMv wherein 0≤x≤0.75. The reference discloses cost-saving motivation to replace some Nd with Ce in magnetic materials.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN P O'KEEFE whose telephone number is (571)272-7647. The examiner can normally be reached MR 8:00-6:30.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/SEAN P. O'KEEFE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/ SPE, Art Unit 1738