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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 8-20 in the reply filed on 11/26/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims 1-7 relate to a method for performing discretized-flow electrochemical machining (ECM), claims 8-13 relate to a system for performing discretized-flow electrochemical machining (ECM), and claims 14-20 relate to a discretized-flow electrode for performing discretized-flow electrochemical machining (ECM), as amended. This is not found persuasive because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement. As stated in the previous restriction requirement, Group I, claims 1-7, and Group II, claims 8-20, are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process (please refer to MPEP §806.05(e)). Here, the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process, including electrodeposition or anodization.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/26/2025 has been entered into the prosecution of the application.
Currently, claim(s) 8-20 is/are pending, with claims 1-7 withdrawn from consideration.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
reference number 204 in Fig. 2A;
reference number 206 in Fig. 2A;
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 8-20 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.
As to claims 8 and 14, the term “approximately parallel” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately parallel” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, the term is interpreted as “parallel”.
Claims 9-13 and 15-20 are rejected for being dependent on claims 8 and 14, respectively.
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.
Claim(s) 8-12 and 14-19 is/are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown Dennis Cockburn of US 3,271,281 A (hereinafter, Cockburn).
As to claim 8, Cockburn teaches to a system for performing discretized-flow electrochemical machining (ECM), the system comprising:
an ECM chamber (Cockburn, col. 2, ln. 55-67, col. 3, ln. 19-45, Fig. 3-4 and 8, teaches to an ECM chamber, as Cockburn teaches to an electrode tool 11);
an ECM tool comprising a discretized-flow electrode (Cockburn, col. 1, ln. Figs. 3-4 and 8, teaches to an ECM tool comprising a discretized-flow electrode, as Cockburn teaches to a tool 11 for electrochemically machining a workpiece),
wherein the discretized-flow electrode includes a machining face divided into a plurality of sections (Cockburn, col. 2, ln. 68, Fig. 5, teaches to wherein the discretized-flow electrode includes a machining face divided into a plurality of sections, as Cockburn teaches to a plurality of tubes 1 assembling together to form a machining face; Cockburn teaches that the tubes 1 comprise a bundle of tubes of conducting material assembled together so that the ends of the tubes at one end of the bundle define a workface conforming with the shape of the cavity to be machined, means being provided for conveying electrolyte to the workface through at least some of the tubes; therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the ends of the tubes defining a workface read into the recited machining face) that separate flow of an electrolyte into multiple discrete areas of the discretized-flow electrode (Cockburn, col. 2, ln. 55-67, Figs. 3-4, teaches to wherein the discretized-flow electrode includes a machining face divided into a plurality of sections that separate flow of an electrolyte into multiple discreate areas of the discretized-flow electrode, as Cockburn teaches pairs of concentric tubes 1, 1a and electrolyte exhaustion through alternate adjacent tubes, resulting in separate flow into multiple discrete areas of the electrode),
wherein the sections of the machining face include a local electrolyte flow inlet (Cockburn, col. 2, ln. 55-67, Figs. 3-4 and 8, teaches to wherein the sections of the machining face include a local electrolyte flow inlet, as Cockburn teaches to an alternative teaching, wherein at least some of the tubes may comprise pairs of concentric tubes 1,1a in which the electrolyte may be fed to the gap through the central tubes 1a and exhausted through the space between a pair of tubes 1, 1a or vice versa),
wherein the sections of the machining face are separated at the machining face by electrolyte flow outlet channels that run parallel to the machining face (Cockburn, col. 2, ln. 55-67, col. 3, ln. 19-45, Figs. 3-4 and 8, teaches to wherein the sections of the machining face are separated at the machining face by electrolyte flow outlet channels that run parallel to the machining face, as Cockburn teaches to a parallel flow out electrolyte as it moves from the tubes 1 to concentric tubes 1, or vice versa; see Fig. 4),
wherein the sections of the machining face are geometrically shaped (Cockburn, col. 2, ln. 72, Figs. 3-5and 8, teaches to wherein the sections of the machining face are geometrically shaped, as Cockburn teaches to the tubes 1 having bores 3 generally of polygonal, including a hexagonal shape), and
wherein the sections of the machining face are arranged to form a grid (Cockburn, col. 2, ln. 55 - col.3, ln. 3, Figs. 3-5 and 8, teaches to wherein the sections of the machining face are arranged to form a grid, as Cockburn teaches to tubes 1 comprising bores 3 that may be of hexagonal shape when a plurality of tubes are assembled together); and
an electrolyte solution in fluid communication with the local electrolyte flow inlets of the sections of the machining face (Cockburn, Figs. 3-5 and 8, teaches to an electrolyte solution in fluid communication with the local electrolyte flow inlets of the sections of the machining face, as Fig. 8 of Cockburn teaches to providing a hole 10 in the tool 11 which opens into the workface thereof at a point which first comes into “contact” with the workpiece; Figs. 3-4 teaches that the electrolyte is supplied through tubes 1 and central tubes 1a), wherein the electrolyte source provides the electrolyte to the ECM chamber through the local electrolyte flow inlets (Cockburn, Figs. 3-5 and 8, teaches to wherein the electrolyte source provides the electrolyte to the ECM chamber through the local electrolyte flow inlets, as Fig. 8 of Cockburn teaches to providing a hole 10 in the tool 11 which opens into the workface thereof at a point which first comes into “contact” with the workpiece; Figs. 3-4 teaches that the electrolyte is supplied through tubes 1 and central tubes 1a);
wherein the electrolyte flows from the sections of the machining face into an inter-electrode gap and escapes from the inter-electrode gap through the electrolyte flow outlet channels that separate the sections of the machining face (Cockburn, Figs. 3-5 and 8, teaches to wherein the electrolyte flows from the sections of the machining face into an inter-electrode gap and escapes from the inter-electrode gap through the electrolyte flow outlet channels that separate the sections of the machining face, as Fig. 8 of Cockburn teaches to providing a hole 10 in the tool 11 which opens into the workface thereof at a point which first comes into “contact” with the workpiece; Figs. 3-4 teaches that the electrolyte is supplied through tubes 1 and central tubes 1a), and
wherein the electrolyte flow outlet channels are configured to cause the electrolyte to exit the inter-electrode gap approximately parallel to the surface of the machining face (Cockburn, col. 2, ln. 55-67, col. 3, ln. 19-45, teaches to wherein the electrolyte flow outlet channels are configured to cause the electrolyte to exit the inter-electrode gap approximately parallel to the surface of the machining face, as Cockburn teaches to a parallel flow out electrolyte as it moves from the tubes 1 to concentric tubes 1, or vice versa; see Fig. 4).
Cockburn does not explicitly teach wherein the sections of the machining face are arranged in a repeating pattern. Nonetheless, Cockburn, col. 2, ln. 55 - col.3, ln. 3, Figs. 3-5 and 8, teaches to wherein the sections of the machining face are arranged in a repeating pattern, as Cockburn teaches to tubes 1 comprising bores 3 that may be of hexagonal shape when a plurality of tubes are assembled together; Fig. 5 of Cockburn are cut-off but Fig. 5 does teach to a repeating pattern of hexagonal shapes around bores 3 of Cockburn. Cockburn teaches to the plurality of tubes for electrochemical machining.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system of Cockburn with a repeating pattern of bores having tubes in increasing the working space of the tool for enabling more efficient electrochemical machining process.
As to claim 9, Cockburn teaches to the system of claim 8, wherein the discretized-flow electrode is a roughing cathode, a pre-finishing cathode, or a finishing cathode (Cockburn, col. 2, ln. 5-20, col. 3, ln. 19-45, col. 4, ln. 4-21, teaches to wherein the discretized-flow electrode is a roughing cathode, a pre-finishing cathode, or a finishing cathode, as Cockburn teaches to the tubes of tool 11 may be connected to a direct current’s negative source to act as a cathode, and leave behind asperities requiring a second pass with a second set of tubes to finish the workpiece).
As to claim 10, Cockburn teaches to the system of claim 8, wherein the electrolyte flow outlet channels provide a continuous pathway at the machining face (Cockburn, col. 3, ln. 14, Figs. 3-5 and 8, teaches to wherein the electrolyte flow outlet channels provide a continuous pathway at the machining face, as Cockburn teaches to circulation of the electrolyte).
As to claim 11, Cockburn teaches to the system of claim 8, wherein the sections of the machining face are formed from a plurality of the line segments to create a two-dimensional shape (Cockburn, col. 2, ln. 72, Figs. 3-5and 8, teaches to wherein the sections of the machining face are formed from a plurality of the line segments to create a two-dimensional shape, as Cockburn teaches to the tubes 1 having bores 3 generally of polygonal, including a hexagonal shape).
As to claim 12, Cockburn teaches to the system of claim 8, wherein the grid is a hexagonal grid (Cockburn, col. 2, ln. 72, Figs. 3-5and 8, teaches to wherein the grid is a hexagonal grid, as Cockburn teaches to the tubes 1 having bores 3 generally of polygonal, including a hexagonal shape).
As to claim 14, Cockburn teaches to a discretized-flow electrode for performing discretized-flow electrochemical machining (ECM), the discretized-flow electrode comprising:
a machining face divided into a plurality of sections (Cockburn, col. 2, ln. 68, Fig. 5, teaches to a machining face divided into a plurality of sections, as Cockburn teaches to a plurality of tubes 1 assembling together to form a machining face; Cockburn teaches that the tubes 1 comprise a bundle of tubes of conducting material assembled together so that the ends of the tubes at one end of the bundle define a workface conforming with the shape of the cavity to be machined, means being provided for conveying electrolyte to the workface through at least some of the tubes; therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the ends of the tubes defining a workface read into the recited machining face) that separate flow of an electrolyte into multiple discrete areas of the discretized-flow electrode (Cockburn, col. 2, ln. 55-67, Figs. 3-4, teaches to wherein the discretized-flow electrode includes a machining face divided into a plurality of sections that separate flow of an electrolyte into multiple discreate areas of the discretized-flow electrode, as Cockburn teaches pairs of concentric tubes 1, 1a and electrolyte exhaustion through alternate adjacent tubes, resulting in separate flow into multiple discrete areas of the electrode),
wherein the sections of the machining face include a local electrolyte flow inlet (Cockburn, col. 2, ln. 55-67, Figs. 3-4 and 8, teaches to wherein the sections of the machining face include a local electrolyte flow inlet, as Cockburn teaches to an alternative teaching, wherein at least some of the tubes may comprise pairs of concentric tubes 1,1a in which the electrolyte may be fed to the gap through the central tubes 1a and exhausted through the space between a pair of tubes 1, 1a or vice versa),
wherein the sections of the machining face are separated at the machining face by electrolyte flow outlet channels that run parallel to the machining face (Cockburn, col. 2, ln. 55-67, col. 3, ln. 19-45, Figs. 3-4 and 8, teaches to wherein the sections of the machining face are separated at the machining face by electrolyte flow outlet channels that run parallel to the machining face, as Cockburn teaches to a parallel flow out electrolyte as it moves from the tubes 1 to concentric tubes 1, or vice versa; see Fig. 4),
wherein the sections of the machining face are geometrically shaped (Cockburn, col. 2, ln. 72, Figs. 3-5and 8, teaches to wherein the sections of the machining face are geometrically shaped, as Cockburn teaches to the tubes 1 having bores 3 generally of polygonal, including a hexagonal shape),
and wherein the sections of the machining face are arranged to form a grid (Cockburn, col. 2, ln. 55 - col.3, ln. 3, Figs. 3-5 and 8, teaches to wherein the sections of the machining face are arranged to form a grid, as Cockburn teaches to tubes 1 comprising bores 3 that may be of hexagonal shape when a plurality of tubes are assembled together);
wherein the machining face is configured such that electrolyte flows from the sections into an inter-electrode gap and escapes from the inter-electrode gap through the electrolyte flow outlet channels that separate the sections of the machining face (Cockburn, Figs. 3-5 and 8, teaches to wherein the machining face is configured such that electrolyte flows from the sections of the machining face into an inter-electrode gap and escapes from the inter-electrode gap through the electrolyte flow outlet channels that separate the sections of the machining face, as Fig. 8 of Cockburn teaches to providing a hole 10 in the tool 11 which opens into the workface thereof at a point which first comes into “contact” with the workpiece; Figs. 3-4 teaches that the electrolyte is supplied through tubes 1 and central tubes 1a), and
wherein the electrolyte flow outlet channels are configured to cause the electrolyte to exit the inter-electrode gap approximately parallel to the surface of the machining face (Cockburn, col. 2, ln. 55-67, col. 3, ln. 19-45, teaches to wherein the electrolyte flow outlet channels are configured to cause the electrolyte to exit the inter-electrode gap approximately parallel to the surface of the machining face, as Cockburn teaches to a parallel flow out electrolyte as it moves from the tubes 1 to concentric tubes 1, or vice versa; see Fig. 4).
Cockburn does not explicitly teach wherein the sections of the machining face are arranged in a repeating pattern. Nonetheless, Cockburn, col. 2, ln. 55 - col.3, ln. 3, Figs. 3-5 and 8, teaches to wherein the sections of the machining face are arranged in a repeating pattern, as Cockburn teaches to tubes 1 comprising bores 3 that may be of hexagonal shape when a plurality of tubes are assembled together; Fig. 5 of Cockburn are cut-off but Fig. 5 does teach to a repeating pattern of hexagonal shapes around bores 3 of Cockburn. Cockburn teaches to the plurality of tubes for electrochemical machining.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system of Cockburn with a repeating pattern of bores having tubes in increasing the working space of the tool for enabling more efficient electrochemical machining process.
As to claim 15, Cockburn teaches to the article of manufacture of claim 14, wherein an electrolyte is supplied to the local electrolyte flow inlets in the sections of the machining face through electrolyte flow passages internal to the discretized-flow electrode (Cockburn, Figs. 3-5 and 8, teaches to wherein an electrolyte is supplied to the local electrolyte flow inlets in the sections of the machining face through electrolyte flow passages internal to the discretized-flow electrode, as Fig. 8 of Cockburn teaches to providing a hole 10 in the tool 11 which opens into the workface thereof at a point which first comes into “contact” with the workpiece; Figs. 3-4 teaches that the electrolyte is supplied through tubes 1 and central tubes 1a; supplying the electrolyte through tubes 1 and central tubes 1a read into supplying electrolyte through the local electrolyte flow inlets through flow passages internal to the electrode; see Figs. 3-4).
As to claim 16, Cockburn teaches to the article of manufacture of claim 14, wherein the discretized-flow electrode is a roughening cathode, a pre-finishing cathode, or a finishing cathode (Cockburn, col. 2, ln. 5-20, col. 3, ln. 19-45, col. 4, ln. 4-21, teaches to wherein the discretized-flow electrode is a roughing cathode, a pre-finishing cathode, or a finishing cathode, as Cockburn teaches to the tubes of tool 11 may be connected to a direct current’s negative source to act as a cathode, and leave behind asperities requiring a second pass with a second set of tubes to finish the workpiece).
As to claim 17, Cockburn teaches to the article of manufacture of claim 14, wherein the electrolyte flow outlet channel provides a continuous pathway at the machining face (Cockburn, col. 3, ln. 14, Figs. 3-5 and 8, teaches to wherein the electrolyte flow outlet channels provide a continuous pathway at the machining face, as Cockburn teaches to circulation of the electrolyte).
As to claim 18, Cockburn teaches to the article of manufacture of claim 14, wherein the sections of the machining face are formed from a plurality of line segments to create a two-dimensional shape (Cockburn, col. 2, ln. 72, Figs. 3-5and 8, teaches to wherein the sections of the machining face are formed from a plurality of the line segments to create a two-dimensional shape, as Cockburn teaches to the tubes 1 having bores 3 generally of polygonal, including a hexagonal shape).
As to claim 19, Cockburn teaches to the article of manufacture of claim 14, wherein the grid is a hexagonal grid (Cockburn, col. 2, ln. 72, Figs. 3-5and 8, teaches to wherein the grid is a hexagonal grid, as Cockburn teaches to the tubes 1 having bores 3 generally of polygonal, including a hexagonal shape).
Claim(s) 13 and 20 is/are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown Dennis Cockburn of US 3,271,281 A (hereinafter, Cockburn), as applied to claim 8 or claim 14 above, and in further view of Frederick R. Joslin of US 4,522,692 A (hereinafter, Joslin).
As to claim 13, Cockburn does not explicitly teach wherein the discretized-flow electrode is 3D-printed using a conductive material.
In an analogous art, Joslin teaches to the system of claim 8, wherein the discretized-flow electrode is 3D-printed using a conductive material (Joslin, col. 2, ln. 29-50, Figs. 1 and 5, teaches to wherein the discretized-flow electrode is 3D-printed using a conductive material, as Joslin teaches to an electrode 26 configured with a working face 28, shaped according to the area which it is desired to electrochemically machine; herein, electrochemical machining process reads into a 3D-priniting process, because the electrode 26 is being prepared in a three-dimensional space; electrode 26 and electrolyte used in the passage 36).
Both Cockburn and Joslin relate to an electrode of an electrochemical machining (Joslin, col. 2, ln. 10). Cockburn does not explicitly teach how the discretized-flow electrode is prepared. Cockburn does teach to the discretized-flow electrode. Joslin teaches to using electrochemical machining in preparation of an ECM electrode, wherein the electrochemical machining occurs in a three-dimensional working space. The electrode 26 is 3D-printed using a conductive material, such as electrolyte or working tool of an ECM machine. The electrode 26 is configured with a working face 28 for enabling electrochemical machining.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Cockburn with the 3D-printed electrode of Joslin for preparing improved electrochemical machining system.
Further, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. Please refer to MPEP §2113.
As to claim 20, Cockburn does not explicitly teach wherein the discretized-flow electrode is 3D-printed using a conductive material.
In an analogous art, Joslin teaches to the article of manufacture of claim 14, wherein the discretized-flow electrode is 3D-printed using a conductive material (Joslin, col. 2, ln. 29-50, Figs. 1 and 5, teaches to wherein the discretized-flow electrode is 3D-printed using a conductive material, as Joslin teaches to an electrode 26 configured with a working face 28, shaped according to the area which it is desired to electrochemically machine; herein, electrochemical machining process reads into a 3D-priniting process, because the electrode 26 is being prepared in a three-dimensional space; electrode 26 and electrolyte used in the passage 36).
Both Cockburn and Joslin relate to an electrode of an electrochemical machining (Joslin, col. 2, ln. 10). Cockburn does not explicitly teach how the discretized-flow electrode is prepared. Cockburn does teach to the discretized-flow electrode. Joslin teaches to using electrochemical machining in preparation of an ECM electrode, wherein the electrochemical machining occurs in a three-dimensional working space. The electrode 26 is 3D-printed using a conductive material, such as electrolyte or working tool of an ECM machine. The electrode 26 is configured with a working face 28 for enabling electrochemical machining.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode of Cockburn with the 3D-printed electrode of Joslin for preparing improved electrochemical machining system.
Further, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. Please refer to MPEP §2113.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lynn A. Williams of US 3,421,997 A (hereinafter, Williams), Fig. 32, teaches to an electrode for electrolytic shaping, wherein the electrode is particularly adapted for producing a plurality of cavities simultaneously so as to have walls of a generally honeycomb conformation between the cavities. Lynn A. Williams of US 3,058,895 A (hereinafter, Williams ‘895) teaches to an electrolytic shaping. Hassan Shirvani of US 6,562,226 B1 (hereinafter, Shirvani) teaches to a electrochemical machining process. Derek A. Glew of US 5,314,598 A (hereinafter, Glew) teaches to a method of electrochemically machining a workpiece. Yuming Zhang of US 2022/0235484 A1 (hereinafter, Zhang) teaches to an electrochemical process. Shao-Han Chang of US 2015/0122636 A1 (hereinafter, Chang) teaches to an electrochemical machining device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be
directed to JOHN LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1254. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-16:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/JOHN LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794