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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 03 February 2026. Presently, claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9-13, 15-22, 24-29, and 33 are pending.
The previous objections to the specification, drawings, and/or claims are withdrawn as moot in light of corrections made by Applicant.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner interprets that the consummable electrode itself is not claimed. It is not positively recited. The claims are directed to an electrode assembly that is “configured to” interface with the consummable electrode in certain ways. It appears that the claims were carfeully constructed to not positively recite the consummable electrode. The Examiner believes that this is the Applicant’s intent.This is logical to protect the sale of welding parts sold separately from consummable electrodes. However, it makes it difficult to define an invention in terms of the size, protrusion, and current though or arcing of the electrode.
The 112(b) rejection of claims 1, 20, and 27 is not overcome. Although part of the structure of the electrode assembly has been clarified, it is still not clear how “the electrode assembly is configured such that, during welding with the consumable electrode inserted therethrough, a ratio between an electrical stick-out distance, measured between a contact tip portion disposed at an end of the head portion and the arcing tip of the consumable electrode, and a diameter of the consumable electrode exceeds 30.” In particular, the electrode itself is not positively recited, according to the Examiner’s interpretation. Thus, this limitation is intended to partially define the electrode assembly, and it is not clear how it limits the electrode assembly. In further evaulating the arguments about this rejection, the Examiner reviewed all 53 granted US Patents in the classification B23K that have “stick out,” “stick-out,” or “stickout” in the claims. Among these patents, there were many methods that specificed the stick out and there were apparatus that measured the stickout or controlled a motor to provide a certain stick out. Not one patent defined a welder, electrode assembly, head portion, extension portion, or any other component by the stickout (with or without electrode diameter) it was configured to provide absent structure or method steps that controlled the stick out. Since the electrode assembly does not control the stick-out (apart from possible minimum stick-out must protrude beyond the extension portion in order to be able to weld), nor the electrode diameter, and the electrode itself is not claimed, it is not clear how the rejected limitations limit the claimed structure of the electrode assembly.
Rejections over Landis are overcome. Landis does not disclose or suggest an extension portion with a 100 mm length.
Rejections over Kwak are overcome. Kwak does not disclose or suggest an extension portion with a 100 mm length.
Regarding the 103 rejection of claim 2, the combination of Radke and Burgoon is motivated by the art-disclosed need to protect the brittle ceramic of the extension protion. The Applicant’s arguments that the combination is inappropriate because Radke is directed to SAW and Burgoon is directed to TIG welding is not persuasive. The type of welding has no bearing on the brittleness of the ceramic material of the extension portion. Put another way, potential breakage of a britte ceramic piece that is long and thin is a problem that transcends the type of welding.
Regarding the 102 rejections over Burgoon, the Applicant argues that Burgoon is directed to TIG welding rather than SAW. While the Examiner certainly appreciates the differences in the types of welding, the Applicant has failed to point out any structural features of the electrode assembly that distinguish a “ceramic tube 25 and stainless steel sheath 31 being configured to receive a consumable electrode having an "arcing tip," as recited by Claim 17.” Since, by the Examiner’s interpretation, the electrode itself and its arcing tip are not claimed, the Applicant must point out a feature of the electrode assembly itself that distinguishes. The Examiner does not assert that Burgoon has an arcing tip. The Examiner asserts that no feature has been pointed out to distinguish the ceramic and stainless steel extension portion of Burgoon from one configured to receive an electrode with an arcing tip.
The Applicant further argues that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would not expect that a structure that could be used for one type of welding would be suitable for the other,” thus Burgoon does not disclose “"an electrode assembly for submerged arc welding," as recited by Claim 17.” According to MPEP 2111.02, “During examination, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art.” Although there is certainly a difference in the welder as a whole between SAW and TIG welding, the Applicant has not pointed out any structural differences in the claimed electrode assembly.
In response to applicant’s argument that Burgoon does not disclose “"an electrode assembly for submerged arc welding," as recited by Claim 17, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The Applicant argues that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Offer into Burgoon's wire feed mechanism.” This argument is not persuasive. Offer teaches a method of attaching a ceramic component (the insulation) to a steel component (the guide tube) in the environment of a welding guide tube. Burgoon does not teach any particular method of attaching the ceramic and steel components of the extension portion, but rather teaches how the extension portion is attached to the contact portion. One may wish to attach the ceramic and steel components of the extension portion to facilitate handling of the extension portion. Since brazing is a known method of attachment for these materials in this environment, it does not represent a patentable distinction.
Claim Interpretation
No claim limitations are interpreted under 112(f).
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, 3, 4, 6, 9-13, 15, 16, 20, and 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the electrode assembly is configured such that, during welding with the consumable electrode inserted therethrough, a ratio between an electrical stick-out distance, measured between a contact tip portion disposed at an end of the head portion and the arcing tip of the consumable electrode, and a diameter of the consumable electrode exceeds 30.” The electrical stick-out distance depends on the manner of use of the electrode assembly, rather than the structure itself. The diameter depends on the electrode used. Although the extension portion can place an upper bound on the diameter of the electrode passing therethrough, it is not clear what features of the electrode assembly determine that the ratio exceeds 30. It is not clear how the limitations concerning the electrical stick-out distance limit the structure of the electrode assembly.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Claim 27 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 17-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burgoon (US 6,127,651).
PNG
media_image1.png
1240
890
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Burgoon discloses:
An electrode assembly for submerged arc welding (This intended use is not disclosed; Burgoon discloses hot wire-gas tungsten arc welding. The examiner appreciates differences between these welding methods, but the claimed structures do not reflect these differences.), comprising:
a head portion (27 at 25a, col 3 lines 60-62, “Current is applied to the filler wire 13 through the upper end of the contact tube 27 above the upper end 25a of the ceramic tube 25 by the contact block 29”); and
an extension portion (ceramic tube 25, col 3 lines 54-56) arranged serially with the head portion in a wire feed direction (see Fig 3), wherein the head portion and the extension portion are configured to feed a consumable electrode (13) therethrough, wherein the extension portion is configured to be disposed closer to an arcing tip (The claims are directed to the electrode assembly and the consumable electrode is not positively recited. According to MPEP ¶2115, “A claim is only limited by positively recited elements.”) of the consumable electrode (at 21) relative to the head portion (7 at 25a) and comprises:
an envelope formed of a nonmagnetic material (stainless steel sheath 31, col 3 line 65 – col 4 line 1); and
an insulating sleeve (ceramic tube 25) disposed within the envelope and comprising a solid insulating material (ceramic) configured to surround the consumable electrode.
Regarding claim 18, Burgoon discloses:
the extension portion (25) comprises opposing first and second ends separated in the wire feed direction (see Fig 3, upper end is 25a, lower end is where 13 protrudes), the head portion comprises a contact tip portion configured to apply a voltage and pass current to the consumable electrode (col 3 lines 60-62, “Current is applied to the filler wire 13 through the upper end of the contact tube 27 above the upper end 25a of the ceramic tube 25 by the contact block 29”) and configured to be proximal to the first end of the extension portion (25a) and distal to the second end of the extension portion (see Fig 3a), when the consumable electrode is fed through the electrode assembly, the arcing tip of the consumable electrode (13 at 21) is configured to be proximal to the second end of the extension portion (lower end of 25, see Fig 3) and distal to the first end of the extension portion, and
the extension portion (25) is disposed between the arcing tip (at 21) and the contact tip portion (at 25a).
Regarding claim 19, Burgoon discloses:
the electrode assembly is configured for an electrical stick-out distance, measured between the contact tip portion and the arcing tip of the consumable electrode, exceeding 125 mm (col 4 lines 18-23: 2-8 inches is disclosed. 125 mm is about 5 inches.).
Regarding claim 21, Burgoon discloses:
the solid insulating material comprises a ceramic material (col 3 lines 54-56).
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.
Claims 20, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgoon (US 6,127,651) in view of JP1 (JP 2542628 Y2).
Regarding claim 26, Burgoon does not disclose:
the extension portion is configured for a diameter of the consumable electrode exceeding 3 mm.
Burgoon is silent on the filler wire diameter. Burgoon discloses hot wire gas tungsten arc welding.
JP1 teaches an inert gas tungsten arc welding apparatus using a hot wire. The diameter of the (filler) wire in the preheating apparatus can be in the range of 2.4 to 3.2 mm (see boxed portion on p.4 of the attached translation).
COMBINATION
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 extension portion of Burgoon to accommodate filler wire with a diameter exceeding 3 mm because JP 2542628 Y2 teaches that this is an appropriate diameter of filler wire for the process.
Regarding claim 27, the extension portion of Burgoon as modified by the wire diameter of JP1 teaches:
the extension portion has a length greater than 100 mm (col 4 lines 18-23: 2-8 inches is disclosed for the length A in Fig 3, with the ceramic tube extending from 25a through the majority of that length. 100 mm is about 4 inches.) and wherein the extension portion is configured such that during welding with the consumable electrode inserted therethrough, a ratio between an electrical stick-out distance (col 4 lines 18-23: 2-8 inches is disclosed, which is 51 to 203 mm), measured between a contact tip portion disposed at an end of the head portion and an arcing tip of the consumable electrode, and the diameter (2.4 to 3.2 mm) of the electrode exceeds 30 (minimum ratio: 51/3.2 = 15.9; maximum ratio: 203/2.4 = 84.6. Many embodiments are in the claimed range of greater than 30).
Claim 20 corresponds to claim 27 and is rejected over the same combination for the same reasons. As to the length of 100 mm, Burgoon discloses a length A in Fig 3 of 2-8 inches (col 4 lines 18-23), with the ceramic tube extending from 25a through the majority of that length. (100 mm is about 4 inches.).
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radke (US 2017/0036294) in view of Burgoon (US 6,127,651).
Regarding claim 1, Radke discloses:
An electrode assembly for submerged arc welding (SAW) (this intended use is not specified), comprising:
a head portion (contact tip 108, ¶18) and an extension portion (extension tube 112, ¶18) arranged serially and configured to feed a consumable electrode (116 in Fig 1B, electrode E, alternatively referred to as a welding wire or consumable), ¶16) therethrough, wherein during welding, the head portion (108) is disposed to be distal to an arcing tip (116 adjacent workpiece W in Fig 1B) of the consumable electrode and the extension portion (112) is disposed to be proximal to the arcing tip of the consumable electrode (see Fig 1B), wherein the extension portion (112) is elongated in a wire feed direction (see Fig 3) and comprises an insulating sleeve (¶18 “the extension tube 112 can be made of electrically insulating material such as ceramic”)…, wherein the insulating sleeve is configured to electrically insulate the consumable electrode from a work piece during welding, wherein the extension portion has a length greater than 100 mm (see Fig 3, “D is in the range of 1.5 to 8 to inches”, ¶23, 8 inches is about 203 mm), and
wherein the electrode assembly is configured such that, during welding with the consumable electrode inserted therethrough, a ratio between an electrical stick-out distance, measured between a contact tip portion disposed at an end of the head portion and the arcing tip of the consumable electrode (see Fig 3, “D is in the range of 1.5 to 8 to inches”, ¶23), and a diameter (diameter of the channel 114 ranges from 0.02 to 0.0625 inches, which is an upper bound for the diameter of the electrode, ¶23) of the consumable electrode exceeds 30 (lowest ratio is 1.5/0.0625 = 24, highest ratio is 8/0.02 = 400, most values are in the claimed range).
Radke does not disclose:
a substantially non-magnetic steel-based envelope that forms an outer surface of the extension portion.
Radke discloses an extension portion that is up to 8 inches long and of small diameter (¶23). This tool is made of ceramic material, which is brittle, and is used in metal fabrication. One would expect some fabrication environments and/or users to pose a risk of breakage to a thin ceramic tool.
Burgoon teaches:
a welding apparatus where the wire is fed through an insulating ceramic sleeve. The insulating ceramic sleeve is protected by a stainless steel sheath. The sheath can protect a brittle ceramic sleeve from damage (col 3 lines 29-35).
COMBINATION
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 assembly of Radke by surrounding the ceramic sleeve with a stainless steel sheath, as taught by Burgoon, to protect the ceramic sleeve from damage.
Regarding claim 3, the electrode assembly of Radke as modified by the stainless steel sheath of Burgoon teaches:
the insulating sleeve is formed of a ceramic (Radke ¶6) material.
Regarding claim 6, the electrode assembly of Radke as modified by the stainless steel sheath of Burgoon teaches:
the electrode assembly is configured for the electrical stick-out distance exceeding 125 mm (the stick-out must be at least as long as the extension, which Radke discloses as up to 8 inches, ¶23).
Regarding claim 9, the electrode assembly of Radke as modified by the stainless steel sheath of Burgoon teaches:
the extension portion has an elongated shape that includes a first end and a second end, wherein the second end is closer to the arcing tip than the first end, and wherein a width of the extension portion tapers inwards towards the second end (Radke Figs 1A and 4 show a tapered embodiment, described in ¶18.).
Regarding claim 10, the electrode assembly of Radke as modified by the stainless steel sheath of Burgoon teaches:
the electrode assembly is configured to achieve a deposition rate per current exceeding 0.05 lbs./hr./A during welding (The deposition rate is affected by many factors, including some external to the electrode assembly. As to the electrode assembly, Radke’s insulated extension portion having a length of up to 8 inches supports this function.).
Regarding claim 11, the electrode assembly of Radke as modified by the stainless steel sheath of Burgoon teaches:
the electrode assembly is configured to achieve a deposition rate exceeding 35 lbs./hr. at a current less than 900A during welding (The deposition rate is affected by many factors, including some external to the electrode assembly. As to the electrode assembly, Radke’s insulated extension portion having a length of up to 8 inches supports this function.).
Regarding claim 12, the electrode assembly of Radke as modified by the stainless steel sheath of Burgoon teaches:
the electrode assembly is configured to drop at least 500 of a total voltage drop across a distance between the head portion and the arcing tip of the consumable electrode (The voltage drop is affected by many factors, including some external to the electrode assembly. As to the electrode assembly, Radke’s insulated extension portion having a length of up to 8 inches supports this function.).
Regarding claim 13, the electrode assembly of Radke as modified by the stainless steel sheath of Burgoon teaches:
the electrode assembly is configured to heat the consumable electrode by Joule heating within the extension portion to a temperature up to 800°C (The temperature is affected by many factors, including some external to the electrode assembly. As to the electrode assembly, Radke’s insulated extension portion having a length of up to 8 inches supports this function.).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radke (US 2017/0036294) in view of Burgoon (US 6,127,651) as applied to claim 3, and further in view of Offer (US 5,958,261).
Regarding claim 4, Radke and Burgoon do not disclose:
the insulating sleeve and the non-magnetic steel-based envelope are held together by an adhesive layer.
Burgoon teaches that the insulating sleeve (ceramic tube 25) and the envelope (stainless steel sheath 31) are secured to an adjacent contact tube 27 by mechanical joints including a collet and a threaded connection (col 4 lines 1-5). Burgoon does not teach a direct attachment between the ceramic tube 25 and the stainless steel sheath, but rather a collet. One of ordinary skill would need to change either Radke’s contact tube or the method of attachment of the steel sheath to the insulating sleeve.
Offer teaches bonding by brazing (col 7 lines 1-16, “bonding (such as braze)…sheet material pinched or bonded”) as a way of connecting a stainless steel (col 6 lines 49-54) hot wire feed tube sheath 68 to an interior or exterior insulation, such as a ceramic insulation (col 7 lines 12-14).
COMBINATION
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 assembly of Radke as modified by Burgoon by including an adhesive layer in the form of a brazed connection between the ceramic tube 25 and the stainless steel sheath 31 to obtain the benefit of securely attaching them.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radke (US 2017/0036294) in view of Burgoon (US 6,127,651) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Caterpillar (GB 898583).
Regarding claim 15, Radke and Burgoon do not disclose:
the insulating sleeve is formed of a ceramic material selected from the group consisting of silicon nitride, magnesia-stabilized zirconia, yttria-stabilized zirconia, silicon carbide, magnesium oxide, alumina, or a zirconia-toughened alumina.
Radke discloses a generic ceramic for insulation (end of ¶18). Burgoon does not specify the type of ceramic.
Caterpillar teaches a welding device (see Fig 1) with a guide tube 30 made of insulating material, such as aluminum oxide (p.2 lines 36-40).
COMBINATION
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 assembly of Radke as modified by Burgoon by making the extension portion out of aluminum oxide, also known as alumina, because Caterpillar teaches that it is appropriate for insulating and guiding an electrode in a welder.
Claims 22, 24, 25, 28, 29, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgoon (US 6,127,651) in view of Offer (US 5,958,261).
Regarding claim 24, Burgoon discloses:
An extension portion configured for a submerged arc welding electrode assembly, the extension portion comprising:
an envelope formed of a nonmagnetic material (stainless steel sheath 31, col 3 line 65 – col 4 line 1); and
an insulating sleeve (ceramic tube 25, col 3 lines 54-56) disposed within the envelope and comprising a solid insulating material (ceramic) configured to surround a consumable electrode (13),
wherein the extension portion is configured to be arranged serially with a head portion of the electrode assembly (col 4 lines 1-3, “The stainless steel tube 31 has an internally threaded collar 33 on its upper end which threads onto the lower end of the contact tube 27.”) and to receive the consumable electrode from the head portion.
Burgoon does not disclose:
the insulating sleeve and the envelope are held together by an adhesive layer
Offer teaches bonding by brazing (col 7 lines 1-16, “bonding (such as braze)…sheet material pinched or bonded”) as a way of connecting a stainless steel (col 6 lines 49-54) hot wire feed tube sheath 68 to an interior or exterior insulation, such as a ceramic insulation (col 7 lines 12-14).
COMBINATION
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 assembly of Burgoon by including an adhesive layer in the form of a brazed connection between the ceramic tube 25 and the stainless steel sheath 31 to obtain the benefit of securely attaching them and thereby facilitate assembly of the extension portion to the contact portion.
Claim 22 is rejected over Burgoon as modified by the adhesive joint of Offer for the same reasons as described above with reference to claims 17 and 24.
Regarding claim 25, Burgoon as modified by the adhesive joint of Offer teaches:
the extension portion has a length greater than 100 mm (col 4 lines 18-23: 2-8 inches is disclosed for the length A in Fig 3, with the ceramic tube extending from 25a through the majority of that length. 100 mm is about 4 inches.).
Regarding claim 28, Burgoon as modified by the adhesive joint of Offer teaches:
the insulating sleeve is formed of a ceramic material (col 3 lines 54-56).
Regarding claim 29, Burgoon as modified by the adhesive joint of Offer teaches:
the envelope is formed of a substantially non-magnetic steel-based material (stainless steel, col 3 line 65 – col 4 line 1).
Regarding claim 33, Burgoon as modified by the adhesive joint of Offer teaches:
the extension portion has a first end (Burgoon: adjacent contact portion 27) that is configured to be distal to an arcing tip of the consumable electrode (The claims are directed to the electrode assembly and the consumable electrode is not positively recited. According to MPEP ¶2115, “A claim is only limited by positively recited elements.”) and a second end (Burgoon: near region B in Fig 3) configured to be proximal to the arcing tip, wherein the extension portion has a maximum width (at 33) and wherein a width of the extension portion at the second end is less than the maximum width (see Fig 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gordon (US 2006/0151453) is relevant to the extension portion length of 100 mm (¶133) for submerged arc welding but does not teach a non-magnetic steel. The silver steel and carbon steel disclosed for the outer sheath are magnetic.
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 TOPAZ L ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-5851. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 a.m. - 4 p.m. EST.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on (571) 270-5569. 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.
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights