DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 01/21/2026 amending Claims 1 – 3, 5, 7, and 9 – 12 and adding new Claims 16 and 17. Claims 1 - 17 are examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
74A – in Paras. [0040], [0041], [0071], and [0072]
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. 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 § 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.
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.
Claims 1 – 4, 7 – 9, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akahoshi et al. (11,103,954) in view of Fukuda et al. (7,605,345).
Regarding Claim 1, Akahoshi teaches, in Figs. 1 - 5, the invention as claimed including a laser beam machine (10 – Fig. 1) comprising: a laser emitting system (18) for emitting a laser beam (LB), wherein the laser emitting system (18) has a protective glass (32) capable of transmitting the laser beam (LB); and a housing (22) attached to the laser emitting system (18, shown in Fig. 1); wherein the housing (22) has cylindrical shape (shown in Figs. 3 - 5) and arranged to surround (shown in Figs. 1 and 2) an optical path of the laser beam (LB) emitted from the laser emitting system (18), the housing (22) includes, a first end (34a) facing the laser emitting system (18), a second end (34b) opposite to the first end (34a), and a first blowing portion (upper portion of 38 adjacent to 34a) located over an entire circumference of an interior (40) of the first end (34a), and wherein the first blowing portion (upper portion of 38 adjacent to 34a) blows a gas (Fig. 4, Col. 4, ll. 40 - 45) toward a central axis of the housing (22).
Akahoshi is silent on said first blowing portion having a first slit-shaped opening located over an entire circumference of an interior of the first end, wherein the first slit-shaped opening blows a gas toward a central axis of the housing.
Fukuda teaches, in Figs. 1 – 8 and Col. 7, ll. 15 – 60, a similar laser emitting system [Fig. 1(a)] having a housing (9) with a first blowing portion [9d closest to 9a in Fig. 6(b)] having a first slit-shaped opening (9d - Col. 7, ll. 45 – 50 “slit-shaped nozzle holes 9d …five nozzles”) located over an entire circumference of an interior [shown in Fig. 6(b)] of the first end (9a), wherein the first slit-shaped opening [9d closest to 9a in Fig. 6(b)] blows a gas toward a central axis (Col. 7, ll. 50 – 60) of the housing (9).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Akahoshi with the first blowing portion having a first slit-shaped opening located over an entire circumference of an interior of a first end, wherein the first slit-shaped opening blows a gas toward a central axis of the housing, taught by Fukuda, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the laser emitting system having a housing with a first blowing portion and the first blowing portion having a first slit-shaped opening located over an entire circumference of an interior of a first end, wherein the first slit-shaped opening blows a gas toward a central axis of the housing, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the five slit-shaped openings located over an entire circumference of an interior, taught by Fukuda, for the blowing portion of Akahoshi, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the five slit-shaped openings located over an entire circumference of an interior of the housing between the first end and the second end would have included the first blowing portion having a first slit-shaped opening blowing a gas toward a central axis of the housing during operation which would have facilitated preventing dust-containing gases from being flown up into the atmosphere near the protective glass (32 – Fukuda - Col. 7, ll. 55 – 60), see Fig. 2-A below. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
PNG
media_image1.png
791
916
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 2, Akahoshi, i.v., Fukuda, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Akahoshi further teaches including wherein the housing (22) further includes a first supply passage (40) located over the entire circumference (shown in Fig. 4) of an inside of the housing (22), wherein the first supply passage (40) supplies the gas (Fig. 4, Col. 4, ll. 40 - 45) to the first blowing portion (upper portion of 38 adjacent to 34a).
Re Claim 3, Akahoshi, i.v., Fukuda, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Akahoshi further teaches including wherein the housing (22) further includes a plurality of first gas inlets (42 – two shown in Figs. 3 and 4, 50 – two shown in Fig. 5, Col. 4, ll. 50 - 55) for introducing the gas into the first supply passage (40).
Re Claim 4, Akahoshi, i.v., Fukuda, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the first supply passage includes a plurality of distribution portions for dividing a gas flow.
Fukuda further teaches, in Fig. 6(b) and Col. 7, ll. 15 – 60, the housing (9) having five slit-shaped openings (9d - Col. 7, ll. 45 – 50 “slit-shaped nozzle holes 9d …five nozzles”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Akahoshi, i.v., Fukuda, with the additional slit-shaped openings, further taught by Fukuda, to facilitated preventing dust-containing gases from being flown up into the atmosphere near the protective glass (32 – Fukuda - Col. 7, ll. 55 – 60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the combination of Akahoshi, i.v., Fukuda, the additional slit-shaped openings, e.g., two or three, would have read on plurality of distribution portions for dividing a gas flow because the gas flow in the first supply passage would have been divided among the first slit-shaped opening and the plurality of distribution portions, i.e., the additional slit-shaped openings.
Re Claim 7, Akahoshi, i.v., Fukuda, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including, as shown in Fig. 2-A above, wherein the first blowing portion is configured to blow the gas toward a position in the central axis (LB – axis of the laser beam) of the housing (22), the position is arranged between a position of 50% of a distance from the second end to the first blowing portion and a position of 80% of the distance (shown in Fig. 2 marked-up below).
Re Claim 8, Akahoshi, i.v., Fukuda, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including, as shown in Fig. 2-A above, wherein the position in the central axis (LB – axis of the laser beam) of the housing (22) is a position that is 70% of the distance (shown in Fig. 2 marked-up above) from the second end (34b) to the first blowing portion.
Re Claim 9, Akahoshi, i.v., Fukuda, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including, as shown in Fig. 2-A above, wherein the housing (22) further includes a second blowing portion (labeled), wherein the second blowing portion has a second slit-shaped opening (labeled) located over the entire circumference of the second end (34b), and the second slit-shaped opening (labeled) blows the gas toward a side opposite (as shown in Fig. 2 the dark arrows parallel to the laser beam showed that the gas that flowed through the slit-shaped openings into 39 then flowed out of 39 toward workpiece 12 which was located below 22) to the laser emitting system (18 located above 22) from the second end (34b).
Re Claim 14, Akahoshi, i.v., Fukuda, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Akahoshi further teaches including further comprising: an airflow generating unit (44, Col. 5, ll. 45 - 60) located at a position away (shown in Fig. 1) from the housing (22), and wherein the airflow generating unit (44) generates an air flow in a direction intersecting (Col. 5, ll. 55 - 60) the central axis of the housing (22).
Re Claim 16, Akahoshi, i.v., Fukuda, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including, as shown in Fig. 2-A above, wherein the first slit-shaped opening of the first blowing portion includes an upper surface and a lower surface facing the upper surface (the slit-shaped opening was defined between the upper surface and a lower surface). Akahoshi, i.v., Fukuda, as discussed above, is silent on wherein an angle of the upper surface with respect to a longitudinal axis of the housing can be adjusted to change a flow direction of the gas blown out from the first blowing portion.
Fukuda further teaches, in Col. 7, ll. 50 – 60, that the upper two slit-shaped openings (9d) were angled 10° to 20° relative to a line perpendicular to the axis of the laser beam (LB) to blow the gas in an inclined direction to facilitate preventing dust-containing gases from being flown up into the atmosphere near the protective glass (32).
Thus, improving a particular device (laser beam machine), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Fukuda, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying this known improvement technique in the same manner to the laser beam machine of Akahoshi, i.v., Fukuda, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that adjusting the angle of the upper surface of the first slit-shaped opening to be from 10° to 20° relative to a line perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the housing would have resulted in changing a flow direction of the gas blown out from the first blowing portion to facilitate preventing dust-containing gases from being flown up into the atmosphere near the protective glass (32 – Fukuda - Col. 7, ll. 55 – 60). KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Re Claim 17, Akahoshi, i.v., Fukuda, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the first slit-shaped opening of the first blowing portion is angled (as shown in Fig. 2-A above) to blow the gas in an inclined direction from the first end (34a) to the second end (34b). Fukuda further teaches, in Col. 7, ll. 50 – 60, that the upper two slit-shaped openings (9d) were angled 10° to 20° relative to a line perpendicular to the axis of the laser beam (LB) to blow the gas in an inclined direction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that in the combination of Akahoshi, i.v., Fukuda, angling the first slit-shaped opening of the first blowing portion to blow the gas in an inclined direction from the first end to the second end would have facilitated preventing dust-containing gases from being flown up into the atmosphere near the protective glass (32 – Fukuda - Col. 7, ll. 55 – 60).
Claims 10 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akahoshi et al. (11,103,954) in view of Fukuda et al. (7,605,345) as applied to Claim 9 above, and further in view of MPEP2144.04(VI)(B) Duplication of Parts.
Re Claims 10 and 11, Akahoshi, i.v., Fukuda, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein (Claim 10) the housing further includes a second supply passage located over the entire circumference of an inside of the housing, wherein the second supply passage supplies the gas to the second blowing portion and (Claim 11) wherein the housing further includes a plurality of second gas inlets for introducing the gas into the second supply passage.
PNG
media_image2.png
1009
1161
media_image2.png
Greyscale
MPEP2144.04(VI)(B) stated “In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.)”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Akahoshi, i.v., Fukuda, with a second supply passage located over the entire circumference of an inside of the housing, wherein the second supply passage supplies a gas to the second blowing portion (marked-up in Fig. 2-A above) and wherein the housing further includes a plurality of second gas inlets for introducing a gas into the second supply passage (marked-up in Fig. 2-A above) because it was held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Applicant’s disclosure failed to disclose a new and unexpected result from the second supply passage and plurality of second gas inlets.
Re Claim 12, Akahoshi, i.v., Fukuda and MPEP2144.04(VI)(B), teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the second supply passage (labeled) includes a fourth distribution portion (labeled) and a fifth distribution portion (labeled), wherein the fourth distribution portion (labeled) is located in a vicinity of each of the plurality of second gas inlets in the second supply passage (labeled), the fourth distribution portion (labeled) is configured to flow a gas toward a circumferential direction of the housing, the gas is introduced from the plurality of second gas inlets (42 – two shown in Fig. 4-A marked-up below), wherein the fifth distribution portion (labeled) is located between a one of the plurality of second gas inlets (42 – left-hand side of Fig. 4-A) and an another of the plurality of second gas inlets (42 – right-hand side of Fig. 4-A).
PNG
media_image3.png
734
823
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akahoshi et al. (11,103,954) in view of Fukuda et al. (7,605,345) as applied to Claim 9 above, and further in view of Continuity equation and Bernoulli’s equation.
Re Claim 13, Akahoshi, i.v., Fukuda, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein an opening area of the second blowing portion is smaller than an opening area of the first blowing portion.
[Note: The following well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because Applicant failed to traverse Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice in the Office Action mailed on 10/22/2025 in Applicant’s reply filed on 01/21/2026. MPEP 2144.03(C)] Examiner takes Official Notice that the Continuity equation and Bernoulli’s equation were known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. “Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language”, 1989 edition, based on the first edition of ‘The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, the Unabridged Edition, copyright 1983’, published by Portland House, New York, New York defines Continuity equation as “the mathematical statement in fluid mechanics that, for a fluid passing through a tube in steady flow, the mass flowing through any section of the tube in a unit of time is constant.” “Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language”, et cetera defines Bernoulli effect, i.e., Bernoulli’s principle or Bernoulli’s equation, as "the decrease in pressure as the velocity of a fluid increases". Simplified, i.e., assuming steady-state, incompressible, inviscid, laminar flow in a horizontal pipe with negligible frictional losses, forms of the Continuity equation and Bernoulli’s equation are shown below and solved for mass flow rate, i.e., m-dot, to show that mass flow rate is proportional to the cross-sectional flow area, i.e., the opening areas of the first and second blowing portions.
Continuity equation Bernoulli’s equation
PNG
media_image4.png
181
177
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
165
197
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Solving Bernoulli’s equation for fluid velocity (V) yields:
PNG
media_image6.png
144
167
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Inserting the solved fluid velocity into the Continuity equation yields:
PNG
media_image7.png
323
245
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The coefficient of discharge (CD) accounts for frictional losses due to a fluid flowing through a long pipe with obstructions such as bends, fittings, reductions (decrease in cross-sectional flow area), orifices, etc. Therefore, for the same pressure drop, fluid density, and cross-sectional flow area, the mass flow rate (m-dot) for a real system will be less than the mass flow rate (m-dot) for an ideal system. As stated above, the Continuity equation and Bernoulli’s equation are simplified for an incompressible fluid. The same equations can be solved for a compressible fluid, i.e., a gas; however, this increases the number of variables and the equations become very complicated. Whether the fluid is incompressible or compressible, the result is the same, i.e., the mass flow rate (m-dot) is proportional to the cross-sectional flow area, i.e., the opening areas of the first and second blowing portions.
Therefore, the relative sizes of the opening areas of the first and second blowing portions was recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that a smaller opening area, i.e., cross-sectional flow area, would have a smaller mass flow rate of gas than a larger opening area for the same pressure drop, fluid density (same fluid). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the first and second blowing portions had opening areas, were disclosed in the prior art by Akahoshi, i.v., Fukuda, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the opening area of the second blowing portion be smaller than an opening area of the first blowing portion so that the mass flow rate of gas from the first blowing portion would have been greater than the mass flow rate of gas from the second blowing portion. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) the Supreme Court held that “a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent". It was held that "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.", In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akahoshi et al. (11,103,954) in view of Fukuda et al. (7,605,345) as applied to Claim 14 above, and further in view of Nakagawa et al. (11,052,483).
Re Claim 15, Akahoshi, i.v., Fukuda, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, wherein the airflow generating unit (44) is located at a position away from the housing (22) by a distance (shown in Fig. 1). Akahoshi further teaches, in Col. 6, l. 59 – Col. 7, l. 20, that the airflow generating unit (44) generated a “cross-jet gas” flow that facilitated keeping splatters and fumes generated from laser welding the workpiece (12) from moving toward and adhering on the protective glass (32) which would have degraded the quality of the weld and increased the maintenance required to clean or replace the protective glass (32).
Akahoshi, i.v., Fukuda, teaches a laser beam machine, i.e., base device, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. Akahoshi, i.v., Fukuda, as discussed above, is silent on said distance being a length of the housing along the central axis or more than the length of the housing along the central axis.
Nakagawa teaches, in Figs. 1 – 4C, a similar laser beam machine (Fig. 1) comprising: a laser emitting system for emitting a laser beam (6), wherein the laser emitting system has a protective glass (11) capable of transmitting the laser beam (6) and an airflow generating unit (3) is located at a position away from the protective glass (11) by a distance (WD – H, shown in Fig. 1). Nakagawa teaches, in Col. 2, ll. 55 – 65, “…the laser welding device of PTL 1 has a long working distance, and thus causes adverse effects, such as refraction of a laser beam and fluctuation of the focal point of a laser beam due to the fumes and spatters rising from a working point in the case of remote welding in which the welding head is positioned away from the working point (for example, about 250 mm or more).” Nakagawa teaches, in Fig. 3, that airflow generating unit (3) positioned a height (H) of 80 mm above the working point (8) of a workpiece (5) produced good weld bead appearance when the flow rate of expensive shield gas (Col. 2, ll. 60 – 65) was from 10 L/min (liters/minute) to 40 L/min. However, positioning airflow generating unit (3) at heights (H) of greater than 80 mm above the working point (8) of a workpiece (5) required higher flow rate of expensive shield gas to produce good weld bead appearance. For example, heights (H) of 120 mm and 160 mm required a minimum flow rate of expensive shield gas of 30 L/min which was three-times the minimum flow rate of 10 L/min at the height (H) of 80 mm. Similarly, at a height (H) of 200 mm required a minimum flow rate of expensive shield gas of 40 L/min which was four-times the minimum flow rate of 10 L/min at the height (H) of 80 mm. Therefore, locating the airflow generating unit at a height closer to the working point of a workpiece and therefore farther from the protective glass facilitated minimizing the cost by minimizing the required flowrate of expensive shield gas while also minimizing the adverse effects of fumes and splatter on the laser beam.
Thus, improving a particular device (laser beam machine), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Akahoshi and Nakagawa, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying this known improvement technique in the same manner to the laser beam machine of Akahoshi, i.v., Fukuda, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that positioning the airflow generating unit away from the housing by a distance being a length of the housing along the central axis or more than the length of the housing along the central axis facilitated minimizing the cost by minimizing the required flowrate of expensive shield gas while also minimizing the adverse effects of fumes and splatter on the laser beam since the greater the distance from the housing the closer the airflow generating unit would have been to the workpiece, i.e., the source of the fumes and splatter when laser beam welding. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent apparatus Claim 5, prior art fails to teach in combination with the other limitations of the claim, “...the plurality of distribution portions includes a first distribution portion (721 – Fig. 3) and a second distribution portion (723), wherein the first distribution portion (721) is located in vicinity of each of the plurality of first gas inlets (74) in the first supply passage (722), the first distribution portion (721) is configured to flow the gas toward a circumferential direction (opposite direction F11 arrows) of the housing, wherein the gas (F11) flowed toward the circumferential direction of the housing is introduced from the plurality of first gas inlets (74), wherein the second distribution portion (723) is located between one (74A) of the plurality of first gas inlets and another (74B) of the plurality of first gas inlets (74), and wherein the first distribution portion (721) and the second distribution portion (723) are each provided on an inner wall (shown in Fig. 3) of the first supply passage (722) and have a protrusion that projects radially outward from the inner wall (shown in Fig. 3), the protrusion being elongated along the circumferential direction (shown in Fig. 3) of the housing”. Claim 6 depends from Claim 5 and is in condition for allowance for the same reasons.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered and to the extent possible have been addressed in the rejections above, at the appropriate locations.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNE E MEADE whose telephone number is (571)270-7570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
/LORNE E MEADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights