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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 5, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 14-18 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-5, 10, 12-13, and 19-20 have been amended. The rejections are revised in view of the amendment.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the covers in “multiple apertures in the top plate that have covers configured for selecting certain apertures for drawing vacuum” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Interpretation
Claims 1-13 and 19-20 in various ways recite limitations as to the additively manufactured object. It is noted that recitations as to the additively manufactured object do not limit the present system claims. See MPEP 2115.
Claims 1-13 and 19-20 do not positively recite a base film. Accordingly, recitations regarding the base film are limitations to the material worked upon and do not limit the present system claims. See MPEP 2115.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) 1-6, 9-11, 13, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riha (US 2019/0322047) in view of El-Siblani (US 2012/0195994).
Regarding claim 1, Riha discloses a system (abstract) comprising: a build platform for an additive manufacturing machine (seal layer 240 and print substrate 140, [0082], Figs. 2, 10-11); the build platform including a top plate (print substrate 140, Fig. 11); at least one aperture in the build platform (vacuum holes 162, [0082], Figs. 10-11) that is positioned to use a difference in air pressure to force a base film (build sheet 200, [0082], Figs. 10-11) directly onto the build platform ([0046] [0082-83], Figs. 10-11), wherein the build platform is configured for the additive manufacturing machine to produce an additively manufactured object on the base film ([0085]), and wherein the additively manufactured object bond forms a partially penetrated bond with the base film (object 180 has to be subsequently detached from build sheet 200, hence a partially penetrated bond has formed, [0046] [0050]; as noted above, under MPEP 2115, details of the produced object and build sheet do not limit the system limitations).
Riha teaches a system substantially as claimed. Riha does not disclose a bottom plate, and a voided internal region between the top plate and the bottom plate; and a spacer material sheet in the voided internal region configured to prevent the top plate and the bottom plate from being pulled together by a difference in air pressure.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing (abstract) and solving the same problem of providing negative suction through a series of holes ([0091-93], Fig. 25), El-Siblani teaches the build platform including a top plate (upper air permeable layer 342 has a finer mesh, [0091-93], Fig. 25), a bottom plate (bottom 344, [0093], Fig. 25), and a voided internal region between the top plate and the bottom plate (space for air permeable layer 340, [0091-93], Fig. 25); and a spacer material sheet in the voided internal region configured to prevent the top plate and the bottom plate from being pulled together by a difference in air pressure (perforated mesh layer 340, [0091-93]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure of Riha pulling air through vacuum holes 162 to be pulled from enclosure 334 of El-Siblani from a vacuum line port 346 with vacuum line 348 of El-Siblani because Riha is silent as to how vacuum is pulled from multiple vacuum holes 162 and [0092-93], Fig. 25 of El-Siblani teaches a predictable way to pull vacuum from a plurality of vacuum holes in an upper platen from a single vacuum line. As modified, vacuum holes 162 would take the place of upper air permeable layer 342 of El-Siblani, with the remaining structure of El-Siblani below down to the vacuum line 348.
Regarding claim 2, Riha as modified teaches wherein the additive manufacturing object is configured to integrate the base film into the additively manufactured object (object 180 has to be subsequently detached from build sheet 200, and thus the system was configured to integrate build sheet 200 into object 180, Riha [0046] [0050]; as noted above, under MPEP 2115, details of the produced object and build sheet do not limit the system limitations).
Regarding claim 3, Riha as modified teaches a system substantially as claimed. Riha does not disclose a vacuum port configured for pulling air from a voided internal region between the top plate and the bottom plate; and a sealing ring between the top plate and the bottom plate that seals the voided internal region, wherein the at least one aperture passes through the top plate to the voided internal region, wherein the top plate, the bottom plate, the spacer material sheet, and the sealing ring are distinct components of the build platform, and wherein pulling the air from the vacuum port creates the difference in the air pressure that forces the base film onto the build platform.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing (abstract) and solving the same problem of providing negative suction through a series of holes ([0091-93], Fig. 25), El-Siblani a vacuum port configured for pulling air from a voided internal region between the top plate and the bottom plate (vacuum line port 346 for pulling air from interior of enclosure 334, [0093], Fig. 25); and a sealing ring between the top plate and the bottom plate that seals the voided internal region (side walls 336a-b, 338a-b, [0092-93]), wherein the at least one aperture passes through the top plate to the voided internal region (gaps in mesh upper air permeable layer 342, [0093], Fig. 25), wherein the top plate, the bottom plate, the spacer material sheet, and the sealing ring are distinct components of the platform (all components supporting object 28, [0093], Fig. 28), and wherein pulling the air from the vacuum port creates the difference in the air pressure that forces the base film onto the build platform ([0093]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure of Riha as noted above by pulling air through vacuum holes 162 to be pulled from enclosure 334 of El-Siblani from a vacuum line port 346 with vacuum line 348 of El-Siblani because Riha is silent as to how vacuum is pulled from multiple vacuum holes 162 and [0092-93], Fig. 25 of El-Siblani teaches a predictable way to pull vacuum from a plurality of vacuum holes in an upper platen from a single vacuum line. As modified, vacuum holes 162 would take the place of upper air permeable layer 342 of El-Siblani, with the remaining structure of El-Siblani below down to the vacuum line 348.
Regarding claim 4, Riha as modified teaches further including a vacuum port passing through the bottom plate (vacuum line port 346 for pulling air from interior of enclosure 334, El-Siblani [0093], Fig. 25), wherein pulling air from the vacuum port causes the difference in the air pressure that forces the base film onto the build platform (vacuum in interior of enclosure 334 pulls as claimed, El-Siblani [0093], Fig. 25).
Regarding claim 5, Riha as modified teaches further including a polymeric base film as the base film to thereby configure the additive manufacturing machine to produce a polymeric additively manufactured object on the polymeric (Riha [0041] [0067]). For the sake of compact prosecution, it is noted that Riha does not disclose further including a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) base film as the base film to thereby configure the additive manufacturing machine to produce a PVDF additively manufactured object on the PVDF base film.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing (abstract) and solving the same problem of materials for build surfaces (film material 31, [0084], Fig. 25), El-Siblani teaches further including a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) base film as the base film ([0084]) to thereby configure the additive manufacturing machine to produce a PVDF additively manufactured object on the PVDF base film (recitations as to the additively manufactured object do not limit the present system claims. See MPEP 2115; accordingly, a specific teaching of PVDF is unnecessary to the anticipation rejection; as noted above, the object 180 of Riha bonds to build sheet 200, hence the need for detachment, Riha [0046] [0050]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Riha such that the base film is a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) base film because [0084] of El-Siblani teaches that PVDF is a suitable film for this purpose.
Regarding claim 6, Riha as modified teaches wherein the additively manufacture object includes polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), and the PVDF bonds to the base film (recitations as to the additively manufactured object do not limit the present system claims. See MPEP 2115; accordingly, a specific teaching of PVDF is unnecessary to the anticipation rejection; as noted above, the object 180 bonds to build sheet 200, hence the need for detachment, Riha [0046] [0050]; separately, this limitation is also taught by the modification discussed for claim 5, [0084] of El-Siblani).
Regarding claim 9, Riha as modified teaches the system as claimed. As noted above, parent claim 1 does not positively recite a base film, it is instead recited as something the system works upon, accordingly, Riha does not have to disclose the additional limitations regarding the base film, See MPEP 2115. Accordingly, Riha as modified teaches the base film is configured as a roll configured to advance new base film material across the build platform or is configured as a folded stack configured to advance the new base film material across the build platform.
Regarding claim 10, Riha as modified teaches wherein an exterior edge of the base film is sealed to a top plate of the build platform (combined build sheet 200 and seal layer 240 sealed by closing sheet 148, Riha [0088], Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 11, Riha as modified teaches wherein the base film is formed of a single material and is textured to facilitate gas conductance into the at least one aperture of the build platform (build surface layer 220 is a sheet (therefore a single material) described as having textured object facing surface in Fig. 8B, with equivalent texture facing downward, this roughness means the surface is textured and would have the effect of facilitating gas conductance as recited (Riha [0070], Fig. 8B).
Regarding claim 13, Riha as modified teaches wherein the difference in the air pressure forces the base film onto the build platform continuously during production of the additively manufactured object (Riha [0082-83]).
Regarding claim 19, Riha discloses a means for producing an additively manufactured object (interpreted as an additive manufacturing machine, see Applicant’s [0010]; system 100 with print head 120, [0041]); a means for using a difference in air pressure to selectively attach a base film directly to the means for producing the additively manufactured object (interpreted as a low pressure source with a vacuum port, see Applicant’s [0015]; vacuum through vacuum holes 162 pulls build sheet 200 to the platform, [0082], Figs. 10-11).
Riha teaches a system substantially as claimed. Riha does not disclose a means for preventing a top plate and a bottom plate of the means for producing the additively manufactured object from being pulled together by the difference in air pressure, the means for preventing being disposed in a voided internal region between the top plate and the bottom plate.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing (abstract) and solving the same problem of providing negative suction through a series of holes ([0091-93], Fig. 25), El-Siblani teaches a means (perforated mesh layer 340, [0091-93]) for preventing a top plate (upper air permeable layer 342 has a finer mesh, [0091-93], Fig. 25) and a bottom plate (bottom 344, [0093], Fig. 25) of the means for producing the additively manufactured object from being pulled together by the difference in air pressure (perforated mesh layer 340 holds that space, [0091-93]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure of Riha pulling air through vacuum holes 162 to be pulled from enclosure 334 of El-Siblani from a vacuum line port 346 with vacuum line 348 of El-Siblani because Riha is silent as to how vacuum is pulled from multiple vacuum holes 162 and [0092-93], Fig. 25 of El-Siblani teaches a predictable way to pull vacuum from a plurality of vacuum holes in an upper platen from a single vacuum line. As modified, vacuum holes 162 would take the place of upper air permeable layer layer 342 of El-Siblani, with the remaining structure of El-Siblani below down to the vacuum line 348.
Regarding claim 20, Riha as modified teaches further including a polymeric base film as the base film to thereby configure the additive manufacturing machine to produce a polymeric additively manufactured object on the polymeric (Riha [0041] [0067]). For the sake of compact prosecution, it is noted that Riha does not disclose further including a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) base film as the base film to thereby configure the additive manufacturing machine to produce a PVDF additively manufactured object on the PVDF base film.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing (abstract) and solving the same problem of materials for build surfaces (film material 31, [0084], Fig. 25), El-Siblani teaches further including a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) base film as the base film ([0084]) to thereby configure the additive manufacturing machine to produce a PVDF additively manufactured object on the PVDF base film (recitations as to the additively manufactured object do not limit the present system claims. See MPEP 2115; accordingly, a specific teaching of PVDF is unnecessary to the anticipation rejection; as noted above, the object 180 of Riha bonds to build sheet 200, hence the need for detachment, Riha [0046] [0050]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Riha such that the base film is a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) base film because [0084] of El-Siblani teaches that PVDF is a suitable film for this purpose.
Claim(s) 4 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riha (US 2019/0322047) in view of El-Siblani (US 2012/0195994) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stolyarov (US 2016/0339633).
Regarding claim 4, Riha discloses wherein the additively manufactured object is made of a material that can be 3D printed ([0117]). For the sake of compact prosecution, it is noted that Riha is not explicit that the additively manufactured object is a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) object.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing by extrusion deposition ([0008] of Riha, abstract; [0061] of Stolyarov), Stolyarov teaches wherein the additively manufactured object is a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) object ([0041]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified the material for printing in Riha to be polyvinylidene fluoride because [0117] of Riha teaches the object can be made of any material used for 3D printing and [0061] of Stolyarov teaches PVDF is such a material.
Regarding claim 20, for the sake of compact prosecution, it is noted that Riha in view of El-Siblani does not teach produce a PVDF additively manufactured object on the PVDF base film. As noted above, this is not necessary to reject claim 20.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing by extrusion deposition ([0008] of Riha, abstract; [0061] of Stolyarov), Stolyarov teaches wherein the additively manufactured object is a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) object ([0041]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified the material for printing in Riha to be polyvinylidene fluoride because [0117] of Riha teaches the object can be made of any material used for 3D printing and [0061] of Stolyarov teaches PVDF is such a material. In line with the modification discussed above, the base film and the additively manufactured object would be PVDF.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riha (US 2019/0322047) in view of El-Siblani (US 2012/0195994) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chanclon (US 2019/0061250).
For ease of presentation, claim 7 is presented with claim 8.
Regarding claim 7, Riha as modified teaches a vacuum pulling assembly (vacuum through vacuum holes 162 inherently includes a vacuum pulling assembly in fluid communication with vacuum holes 162, [0082], Figs. 10-11); and pulling air from the vacuum port creates the difference in the air pressure that forces the base film onto the build platform (vacuum through vacuum holes 162 pulls build sheet 200 to the platform, [0082], Figs. 10-11).
Riha as modified teaches a system substantially as claimed. Riha does not disclose a vacuum pulling assembly that includes a vacuum tab and a vacuum port on the vacuum tab.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing (abstract) and solving the same problem of connecting a vacuum source to a tube to create negative pressure ([0034]), Chanclon teaches a vacuum pulling assembly that includes a vacuum tab and a vacuum port on the vacuum tab (magnetic interconnect 255 connects connection unit adapter 275 to outlet adaptor 208, [0053], Figs. 2, 4; vacuum tab interpreted as the structure that connects to the vacuum port).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Riha and connect the vacuum source in Riha by the structure recited in Chanclon because [0053] of Chanclon teaches it is a predictable way to connect a vacuum source.
Regarding claim 8, Riha as modified teaches wherein: the vacuum pulling assembly includes a magnet (as modified, Chanclon [0053]); and the magnet is positioned to use a magnetic force to hold a vacuum hose to the vacuum port (as modified, Chanclon [0053]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riha (US 2019/0322047) in view of El-Siblani (US 2012/0195994) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boyd (US 2004/0224173).
Regarding claim 9, as noted above, Riha as modified teaches the system as claimed. For the sake of compact prosecution, it is noted that Riha does not disclose the base film is configured as a roll configured to advance new base film material across the build platform or is configured as a folded stack configured to advance the new base film material across the build platform.
However, in the same field of endeavor of 3D printing and solving the same problem of managing a film placed on a build platform, [0043]), Boyd teaches the base film is configured as a roll configured to advance new base film material across the build platform (delivered from a roll, [0034]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Riha to have build sheet 200 delivered from a roll because Riha is silent as to how the build sheets are delivered and [0043] of Boyd teaches that sheets placed over a build platform can be delivered from a roll.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riha (US 2019/0322047) in view of El-Siblani (US 2012/0195994) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ciscon (US 2021/0039315).
Regarding claim 12, Riha as modified teaches the at least one aperture includes multiple apertures in the top plate (vacuum holes 162, Riha [0082], Figs. 10-11; also as modified, pores in mesh 342 and 340 in El-Siblani, [0091-93], Fig. 25).
Riha as modified teaches a system substantially as claimed. Riha does not disclose covers configured for selecting certain apertures for drawing vacuum.
However, in the same field of endeavor of a 3D printer with a vacuum secured build surface (abstract), Ciscon teaches the at least one aperture includes multiple apertures in the top plate that have covers configured for selecting certain apertures for drawing vacuum (zone of holes 103 can be blocked off with a flap or shutter, [0088]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Riha to have a flap or shutter for specific zones because [0087] of Ciscon teaches that doing so enables multiple print jobs on a common print bed, with a closed off zone able to remove completed printed jobs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed May 5, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 9-13, and 19-20 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of El-Siblani (US 2012/0195994).
Applicant has made numerous amendments to the claims. This has prompted changes in the art cited and how it is presented to address each limitation. Applicant argues the claims as amended are allowable. The rejections above detail the relevant art and teachings.
Applicant’s arguments, filed May 5, 2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112b have been fully considered and are persuasive. The relevant rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC whose telephone number is (571)272-6131. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC/ Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights