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 1-6, 8-11, 14, 15, 18-21, and 25-27 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. Dependent claims not listed separately are rejected due to their dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first collecting surface and the second collecting surface" in the last two lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 only ever discloses a first collection suction surface and a second collection suction surface. Are the surfaces in the last two lines the previously claimed suction surfaces? Claim 1 will be interpreted as if the last two lines were the previously claimed suction surfaces.
Claim 2 is seen as vague and indefinite since the intercept zone is not entirely over the surface of the at least one collecting suction surface. The amendment to claim 1 creates a passage between the two collecting suction surfaces. Essentially, Applicant’s Figure 6 is the only possible interpretation based on the structure presented in claim 1, thus what part of the collecting suction surface is being used as the base reference for the height, and additionally the intercept zone is not exactly over a surface, but over the passage.
Claims 26 and 27 recite the limitation "the distribution width". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “Distribution width” was removed from claim 1 in the last amendment.
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.
Claims 10 and 11 are 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. Claim 11 is rejected due to its dependency.
Claim 1 was amended to say that the intercepted flow (which includes the first flow of thermoplastic material) is directly applied onto the first collecting surface and the second collecting surface. Claim 10 then states that a second flow of thermoplastic material is applied prior to the first flow on the collection surface. This is entirely counter to what is claimed in claim 1, and fails the test for proper dependency per MPEP 608.01(n) III. Claim 10 is trying to replace the required limitation from claim 1, without further limitation. One cannot deposit the second flow on the collector at the same time as having a requirement that the first flow is also directly applied to the same collector. Thus claim 10 cannot and does not further limit claim 1.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility. As discussed above, the method of claim 10 is impossible based on the requirements of claim 1, therefore claim 10 is inoperative. Claim 11 is rejected due to its dependency.
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.
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 1-6, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (U.S. PGPub 2006/0004336; herein Zhang, already of record), in view of Jackson et al (U.S. Patent 5,952,251; herein Jackson). Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches:
A first mass of meltblown fibers comprising at least a first, melted and blown thermoplastic material (paragraphs 0078 and 0030, and Figure 4; meltblowing dies 60 produce the fibers)
A particulate material dispersed among the fibers and at least partly adherent thereto (Figure 4, paragraph 0078, superabsorbent particles 32 are delivered via the fiberizer 54 and delivery cute 58), the method comprising the following steps for making said first layer
Melt blowing a first flow of thermoplastic material comprising said first thermoplastic material towards at least one collecting suction surface moving in a feed direction to obtain said first mass of meltblown fibers (Figure 4, the fibers from dies 60 are directed towards foraminous forming surface 52 which has vacuum suction, paragraph 0078 and 0084)
Dispensing a flow of particulate material comprising said particulate material towards the at least one collecting suction surface in such a way as to intercept the first flow of thermoplastic material in an intercept zone (Figure 4 the particles 32 are dispensed as claimed)
Wherein the first flow of thermoplastic material and the flow of particulate material intercept each other in the intercept zone at an intercept angle of between 1 and 90 degrees (Figure 4, the fibers from die 60 and particles from chute 58 intercept as claimed, at an angle 66 of 35-65 degrees, with a specific example of 45 degrees, paragraph 0086, this means the angle at intercept would be 25-55 degrees, specifically 45)
Regarding:
Wherein the first flow of thermoplastic material has a distribution width, measured according to a feed direction of the at least one collecting suction surface, of between 1 mm and 20 mm
Since no other process parameters are claimed (e.g. flow rate, nozzle dimensions, etc) that would differentiate the claimed process from the art, and Zhang teaches all other aspects of the claim, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that the process of Zhang would be capable of having such a width.
Additionally, such a width is seen as optimizing process parameters through routine experimentation, since such a width would be at least dependent on the material flow rate, the nozzle shape, and the nozzle dimensions, all of which are easily control by one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 II A.
Finally regarding claim 1, Zhang is silent to:
Wherein said at least one collecting suction surface includes a first collecting suction surface and a second collecting suction surface and said step of melt blowing a first flow of thermoplastic material, said step of dispensing a flow of particulate material and a step of melt blowing a further flow of thermoplastic material occur towards the first collecting suction surface and the second collecting suction surface relatively positioned to define a passage for the total flow of thermoplastic material and the flow of particulate material, said first flow of thermoplastic material, said further flow of thermoplastic material and said flow of particulate material intercepting each other at least in part upstream of said passage to form an intercepted flow; and said intercepted flow being directly applied onto the first collecting surface and the second collecting surface
In the same field of endeavor Jackson teaches a similar method/apparatus to Zhang in Figure 3. Jackson also teaches in Figure 1 and column 14, lines 30-44 the claimed collection method and structure newly added to claim 1. Additionally, Jackson states that both collection means shown in Figure 1 and Figure 3 can be used for the same purpose (column 14, lines 44-47).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the vacuum roller nip collection of Jackson, since using such a collector helps integrate material streams and forms integrate and self-supporting nonwoven structures. Additionally, Jackson has shown that wire collectors and vacuum nip rollers are equivalents for the same purpose, see MPEP 2144.06 II.
Regarding claim 2:
Wherein the first flow of thermoplastic material and the flow of particulate material intercept each other in the intercept zone at an intercept height with respect to the collecting suction surface which is greater than or equal to zero and less than 300 mm
In Figure 4, Zhang shows a slant distance 50 (paragraph 0089), a die-to-die width 64 (paragraph 0081), and a die angle 66 (paragraph 0086).
The slant distance 50 can range from 10-16.3 cm.
The die-to-die width 64 can be 11.4-17.8 cm.
The die angle 66 can be 35-65 degrees.
In annotated Figure 4 (below) a right triangle is formed based on these parameters. The die angle 66 is labeled α, the slant distance is labeled C, and half the die-to-die distance is labeled B. Based on trigonometry a range of possible values of A can be calculated when one varies α and B (Table 1), and α and C (Table 2). The distance A can range from 4-19.1 cm. We know that the die-to-table distance 62 can be 25.4-40.6 cm (paragraph 0087). Thus the intercept height would be the die-to-table distance minus the distance A, the intercept height of Zhang can thus range from 6.3-36.6 cm or 63-366 mm.
PNG
media_image1.png
672
1205
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that the claimed intercept height is obvious based on the overlapping range of possible intercept heights in Zhang, see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang teaches:
Wherein the flow of particulate material is at a right angle to the at least one collecting suction surface (Figure 4, the flow of particles out of chute 58 is at a right angle to the collecting surface)
Regarding claims 4 and 5:
There are only so many combinations of how the fibers and particles entrain each other, thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, since it has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this instance there are three possible combinations: the fibers fully entrain the particles, the particles fully entrain the fibers, or there is an equal/even distribution of the two. Thus claiming how a known process entrains the components when there are only three options is seen as obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang teaches:
Wherein the first flow of thermoplastic material is melt blown by at least one nozzle located at a dispensing distance measured along a perpendicular to the at least one collecting suction surface greater than 100 mm and less than 1200 mm (Figure 4, distance 62, paragraph 0087, can be 33 cm (330 mm)), preferably between 250 mm and 400 mm
Regarding claim 14:
The thickness of the passage is seen as obvious since it would be a result of the desired end thickness and compressibility of the materials used.
Regarding claim 15:
Jackson teaches such structures in Figure 1, for the same purpose as previously discussed.
Regarding claim 18, Zhang teaches:
Wherein said thermoplastic material is a thermoplastic elastomer (paragraph 0030)
Regarding claims 20 and 21:
As previously discussed, Zhang teaches superabsorbent particles 32 in paragraph 0078.
Regarding claim 25-27:
See remarks regarding claim 1.
Claims 1-6, 9, 14, 15, 20, 21, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georger et al (U.S. Patent 5350624; herein Georger, already of record), in view of Jackson. Regarding claim 1, Georger teaches:
A first mass of meltblown fibers comprising at least a first, melted and blown thermoplastic material (Figures 1 and 2, molten threads 20 via gas streams 26/28)
A particulate material dispersed among the fibers and at least partly adherent thereto (Figures 1 and 2, secondary fibers and/or particulates 32 (column 7, lines 3-4) via secondary gas stream 34), the method comprising the following steps for making said first layer
Melt blowing a first flow of thermoplastic material comprising said first thermoplastic material towards at least one collecting suction surface moving in a feed direction to obtain said first mass of meltblown fibers (Figures 1 and 2, molten threads 20 via gas streams 26/28 towards endless belt 58 with vacuum boxes 64 (column 9, lines 27-45))
Dispensing a flow of particulate material comprising said particulate material towards the at least one collecting suction surface in such a way as to intercept the first flow of thermoplastic material in an intercept zone (Figures 1 and 2, secondary fibers and/or particulates 32 (column 7, lines 3-4) via secondary gas stream 34, which intercept at impingement zone 30)
Wherein the first flow of thermoplastic material and the flow of particulate material intercept each other in the intercept zone at an intercept angle of between 1 and 90 degrees (Figures 1 and 2, the flows of Georger intercept as claimed. Georger teaches an angle theta in Figure 2 of 30-75 degrees, which means the angle at intercept is 15-60 degrees (column 9, line 634 through column 10, line 7))
Finally regarding claim 1, Georger is silent to:
Wherein said at least one collecting suction surface includes a first collecting suction surface and a second collecting suction surface and said step of melt blowing a first flow of thermoplastic material, said step of dispensing a flow of particulate material and a step of melt blowing a further flow of thermoplastic material occur towards the first collecting suction surface and the second collecting suction surface relatively positioned to define a passage for the total flow of thermoplastic material and the flow of particulate material, said first flow of thermoplastic material, said further flow of thermoplastic material and said flow of particulate material intercepting each other at least in part upstream of said passage to form an intercepted flow; and said intercepted flow being directly applied onto the first collecting surface and the second collecting surface
In the same field of endeavor Jackson teaches a similar method/apparatus to Georger in Figure 3. Jackson also teaches in Figure 1 and column 14, lines 30-44 the claimed collection method and structure newly added to claim 1. Additionally, Jackson states that both collection means shown in Figure 1 and Figure 3 can be used for the same purpose (column 14, lines 44-47).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the vacuum roller nip collection of Jackson, since using such a collector helps integrate material streams and forms integrate and self-supporting nonwoven structures. Additionally, Jackson has shown that wire collectors and vacuum nip rollers are equivalents for the same purpose, see MPEP 2144.06 II.
Regarding claim 2, Georger teaches:
Wherein the first flow of thermoplastic material and the flow of particulate material intercept each other in the intercept zone at an intercept height with respect to the at least one collecting suction surface which is greater than or equal to zero and less than 300 mm (The intercept height is Y in Figure 2 and can be about 3 to about 7 inches (76.2-177.8 mm) (column 10, lines 60-61))
Regarding claim 3, Georger teaches:
Wherein the flow of particulate material is at a right angle to the at least one collecting suction surface (As seen in Figures 1 and 2 the flow of particles 32 via gas stream 34 is normal to the belt 58)
Regarding claims 4 and 5:
There are only so many combinations of how the fibers and particles entrain each other, thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, since it has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this instance there are three possible combinations: the fibers fully entrain the particles, the particles fully entrain the fibers, or there is an equal/even distribution of the two. Thus claiming how a known process entrains the components when there are only three options is seen as obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Georger teaches
Wherein the first flow of thermoplastic material is melt blown by at least one nozzle located at a dispensing distance measured along a perpendicular to the at least one collecting suction surface greater than 100 mm and less than 1200 mm (Figure 2, the distance betta can be 7 to 11 inches (177.8 to 279.4 mm) (column 10, lines 48-49))
Regarding claim 9:
Wherein the first flow of thermoplastic material comprises a first flow of air and the flow of particulate material comprises a second flow of air, said first and second flow of air having equal speed
Georger does not explicitly state such a speed relationship, but in column 8, lines 39-43, Georger teaches that the velocity of the secondary gas stream 34 is controllable, thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the two speeds equal to each other, since Georger teaches the speed to be controllable, and thus would fall under the concept of routine optimization, see MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 14:
The thickness of the passage is seen as obvious since it would be a result of the desired end thickness and compressibility of the materials used.
Regarding claim 15:
Jackson teaches such structures in Figure 1, for the same purpose as previously discussed.
Regarding claims 20 and 21:
Georger teaches the material of 32 is absorbent (column 7, lines 16-46)
Regarding claim 25-27:
See remarks regarding claim 1.
Claims 1-6, 8, 14, 15, 20, 21, 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey et al (U.S. Patent 8017534; herein Harvey, already of record), in view of Jackson. Regarding claim 1, Harvey teaches:
A first mass of meltblown fibers comprising at least a first, melted and blown thermoplastic material (Figures 1 and 2, molten threads 20 via air streams 26/28)
A particulate material dispersed among the fibers and at least partly adherent thereto (Figures 1 and 2, secondary fibrous materials and/or particulates 32 (column 6, lines 32-33) via secondary gas stream 34), the method comprising the following steps for making said first layer
Melt blowing a first flow of thermoplastic material comprising said first thermoplastic material towards at least one collecting suction surface moving in a feed direction to obtain said first mass of meltblown fibers (Figures 1 and 2, molten threads 20 via air streams 26/28 towards belt 58 with vacuum via negative air pressure unit 80 (column 9, lines 41-43))
Dispensing a flow of particulate material comprising said particulate material towards the at least one collecting suction surface in such a way as to intercept the first flow of thermoplastic material in an intercept zone (Figures 1 and 2, secondary fibrous materials and/or particulates 32 via secondary gas stream 34, which intercept at formation zone 30)
Wherein the first flow of thermoplastic material and the flow of particulate material intercept each other in the intercept zone at an intercept angle of between 1 and 90 degrees (Figures 1 and 2, the flows of Harvey intercept as claimed. Harvey teaches an angle theta in Figure 2 of 30-75 degrees, which means the angle at intercept is 15-60 degrees (column 10, lines 10-22))
Regarding:
Wherein the first flow of thermoplastic material has a distribution width, measured according to a feed direction of the at least one collecting suction surface, of between 1 mm and 20 mm
Since no other process parameters are claimed (e.g. flow rate, nozzle dimensions, etc) that would differentiate the claimed process from the art, and Harvey teaches all other aspects of the claim, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that the process of Harvey would be capable of having such a width.
Additionally, such a width is seen as optimizing process parameters through routine experimentation, since such a width would be at least dependent on the material flow rate, the nozzle shape, and the nozzle dimensions, all of which are easily control by one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 II A.
Finally regarding claim 1, Harvey is silent to:
Wherein said at least one collecting suction surface includes a first collecting suction surface and a second collecting suction surface and said step of melt blowing a first flow of thermoplastic material, said step of dispensing a flow of particulate material and a step of melt blowing a further flow of thermoplastic material occur towards the first collecting suction surface and the second collecting suction surface relatively positioned to define a passage for the total flow of thermoplastic material and the flow of particulate material, said first flow of thermoplastic material, said further flow of thermoplastic material and said flow of particulate material intercepting each other at least in part upstream of said passage to form an intercepted flow; and said intercepted flow being directly applied onto the first collecting surface and the second collecting surface
In the same field of endeavor Jackson teaches a similar method/apparatus to Harvey in Figure 3. Jackson also teaches in Figure 1 and column 14, lines 30-44 the claimed collection method and structure newly added to claim 1. Additionally, Jackson states that both collection means shown in Figure 1 and Figure 3 can be used for the same purpose (column 14, lines 44-47).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the vacuum roller nip collection of Jackson, since using such a collector helps integrate material streams and forms integrate and self-supporting nonwoven structures. Additionally, Jackson has shown that wire collectors and vacuum nip rollers are equivalents for the same purpose, see MPEP 2144.06 II.
Regarding claim 2, Harvey teaches:
Wherein the first flow of thermoplastic material and the flow of particulate material intercept each other in the intercept zone at an intercept height with respect to the at least one collecting suction surface which is greater than or equal to zero and less than 300 mm (The intercept height is Y in Figure 2 and can be about 5 cm to about 18 cm) (column 10, lines 63-66))
Regarding claim 3, Harvey teaches:
Wherein the flow of particulate material is at a right angle to the at least one collecting suction surface (As seen in Figures 1 and 2 the flow of particles 32 via gas stream 34 is normal to the belt 58)
Regarding claims 4 and 5:
There are only so many combinations of how the fibers and particles entrain each other, thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, since it has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this instance there are three possible combinations: the fibers fully entrain the particles, the particles fully entrain the fibers, or there is an equal/even distribution of the two. Thus claiming how a known process entrains the components when there are only three options is seen as obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Harvey teaches
Wherein the first flow of thermoplastic material is melt blown by at least one nozzle located at a dispensing distance measured along a perpendicular to the at least one collecting suction surface greater than 100 mm and less than 1200 mm (Figure 2, the distance betta can be 100 to 280 mm (column 10, lines 43-55))
Regarding claim 8, Harvey teaches:
Wherein the flow of particulate material has a distribution width, measured along a feed direction of the at least one collecting suction surface, of between 1 mm and 200 mm (5 to 12 cm, column 7, lines 52-58 and column 9, lines 20-25, the meltblowing nozzle and the nozzle 44 have the same width)
Regarding claim 14:
The thickness of the passage is seen as obvious since it would be a result of the desired end thickness and compressibility of the materials used.
Regarding claim 15:
Jackson teaches such structures in Figure 1, for the same purpose as previously discussed.
Regarding claims 20 and 21:
Harvey teaches the material of 32 is absorbent (column 8, lines 22-24)
Regarding claim 25-27:
See remarks regarding claim 1.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, Georger, Harvey, and Jackson as applied above, and in further view of Goldwasser et al (US PGPub 2003/0186612; herein Goldwasser, already of record). Regarding claim 19, Zhang, Georger, Harvey, and Jackson are silent to:
Wherein said first flow of thermoplastic material comprises a molten hydrophilic additive blown together with said first thermoplastic material
In the same field of melt blowing fibers Goldwasser teaches adding an additive to the melt to make the fibers hydrophilic (paragraph 0011, 0013, and 0022).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add the additive of Goldwasser to the process of Zhang, Georger, Harvey, or Jackson since doing so improves the fluid handling of the end product.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TIMOTHY J KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7068. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIMOTHY KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743