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 .
Response to Arguments
The Applicant agrees that the Examiner’s combination would place the silver on the same side as required by the claims. If a silver layer were placed on the same side as the resistive trace, it would cause an electrical short.
The Applicant argues that Kou discloses a fundamentally different geometry. This argument is not persuasive. Kou discloses applying a heat-conducting, i.e. silver, layer to a plate-type heating element at ¶49:
Furthermore, not limited to the aforementioned needle-type heating element, a heat-conducting layer can also be added to a designated area on one or both sides of the plate-type heating element or to the inner surface of the tubular heating element to improve the surface temperature distribution of the heating element.
The teaching of applying the heat-conducting, i.e. silver, layer to the inner surface of the tubular heating element is also significant because that surface is in direct contact with the object/substance to be heated.
It appears the Applicant may be arguing that Kou does not disclose thick-film printing. First, the claims are to a hair iron, not to a method. Thus, any claim limitation concerning thick-film printing is a product by process claim, and thus only interpreted as to how it affects the structure of the hair iron. Second, Kou arguably discloses thick-film printing, or at least a process that would produce a layer indistinguishable from one made by thick-film printing. Thick-film printing is interpreted to be a process wherein a paste is applied to a surface in a thickness of at least 10 µm and sintered.
Kou teaches applying the heat-conducting layer by, essentially, thick film printing:
the thermal conductive electrode paste of the thermal conductive layer is printed on the insulating layer (¶50)
The thermally conductive layer is formed by printing thermally conductive electrode paste onto the insulating layer… and sintering it together. (¶17)
The sintering temperature is low (850～900℃), which can be used with low-temperature sintering electrode pastes such as silver paste, silver palladium paste, silver platinum paste (¶57)
When the thermally conductive layer is a silver layer, the thickness of the silver layer is 10–15 μm. (¶20)
It should be noted that “material of the insulating layer is the same as that of the ceramic core and the ceramic substrate” (¶16). Thus, Kou teaches printing silver directly on a ceramic material. It should be emphasized that Kou teaches “a heat-conducting layer can also be added to a designated area on one or both sides of the plate-type heating element” (¶49), which would place it on the surface.
The Applicant “the silver layer must serve specifically as a heat spreader to reduce thermal gradients across that ceramic substrate during hair iron use.” Although the claims recite a corresponding functional limitation, this merely means that the silver layer must be capable of serving as a heat spreader to reduce thermal gradients across the ceramic substrate during use. Furthermore, this is precisely the function taught by Kou and the rationale for combination:
To address the uneven temperature on the surface of the heating element, this invention adds a heat-conducting layer of high thermal conductivity material to the surface of the heating area of the heating element. The thermal conductivity of the heat-conducting layer is greater than that of the ceramic substrate material, which can quickly balance the heat distribution on the surface of the heating element and make the surface temperature of the heating element uniform. (Kou, ¶48)
the use of a heat-conducting layer solves the problem of uneven temperature distribution in a short time (Kou, ¶55).
The Applicant argues that “the Examiner's stated rationale - adding it "to the hair contact surface" to provide uniform temperature - does not meaningfully engage with the specific mechanism and technical character of thick-film printing a silver heat spreader onto the ceramic substrate itself. Kou teaches, essentially thick film printing a silver heat spreader onto a ceramic surface. It should be emphasized that Kou teaches “a heat-conducting layer can also be added to a designated area on one or both sides of the plate-type heating element” (¶49), which would place it on the surface.
The Applicant argues that electronic cigarettes is a field fundamentally distinct due to different substrate materials. This argument is not persuasive. Bayerle discloses alumina, i.e. an aluminum oxide ceramic heater (Bayerle, ¶30). Kou teaches alumina is frequently used in cigarette heaters (Kou, ¶44). Bayerle teaches a flat heater, and Kou teaches a flat plate heater (¶49) or sheet-shaped heater (¶4).
It is not clear due to the vague wording, but the Applicant may be attempting to argue whether Kou is analogous art. If present, this argument is not persuasive. According to MPEP §2141.01 (a), “As for the "reasonably pertinent" test, the examiner should consider the problem faced by the inventor, as reflected - either explicitly or implicitly - in the specification.” The problem, as described in the specification includes “During use, thermal gradients develop along the resistor lengths” (p.2), which is directly addressed by Kou ¶48 and ¶55 as noted above. Apparently, the inventor has already considered laser printers (p.2). The specification has also defined the field of endeavor: “any solutions in the technology of heaters” (p.2).
Applicant repeatedly ignores the cited portions of Kou that recite printing and firing, and bases arguments on dip-coating and adhesive. Kou is available for all that it teaches, which includes printing and sintering a layer of silver. Arguments relating to adhesive or dip-coating are thus moot.
The argument pertaining to claim 9 is persuasive. Kou does not teach or suggest “streets.”
Regarding claim 2, the Applicant argues “Kou does not describe any role of platinum in improving adhesion.” This is irrelevant. This appears only to require direct contact of the silver-platinum mixture with the ceramic material, which is taught by Kou. The Applicant argues “The specification of the present application teaches that silver-platinum compositions are used in the conductive traces of the heater, where platinum serves to improve adhesion to the alumina substrate at the high sintering temperatures used in thick-film printing (Specification, p. 8, discussing conductive traces formed from silver and platinum or palladium).” First, the conductive traces are separate from the “layer of silver” of claim 2. Second, the specification describes no such function of platinum in the conductive traces or the layer of silver – at p.8 or anywhere else. One might say that the instant specification “does not describe any role of platinum in improving adhesion of the silver layer to a ceramic substrate during sintering.”
Regarding claims 4 and 17, the Applicant argues that the optimization applied “is uniquely relevant to thick-film printing technology.” Since Kou discloses printing paste in a layer 10-15 µm thick and sintering it, this means that the optimization is relevant to the layer of Kou.
Regarding claim 5, the Applicant argues that printing two layers achieves the unexpected technical effect of producing a thicker layer (while managing stresses). This is not an unexpected result. The Applicant further argues that this “technique is inherent to thick-film printing fabrication.” Since Kou discloses printing paste in a layer 10-15 µm thick and sintering it, techniques inherent to thick-film printing apply. Furthermore, the specification makes no mention of such a technical effect. The specification merely states “the silver may include multiple layers depicted by dashed line 183 (p.10). Upon initially reading of the specification on 12 December 2025, before writing the rejection or receiving arguments from the Applicant, the Examiner noted that “no reason” was given for the multiple layers.
PNG
media_image1.png
128
1054
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The specification makes no mention of firing between layers or mitigating stress. Thus, the assertion that “The sequential double-printing process in which the first sublayer is printed, dried, and fired before the second sublayer is printed, dried, and fired is a specific thick-film printing technique that allows achievement of greater total silver thickness than a single print while managing the stresses of each individual printing step” is not supported by the specification or consistent with the scope of the specification. According to MPEP §2145, “Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.")”
Regarding claims 6 and 19, the Applicant argues that Kou teaches away from the claimed thickness. This argument is not persuasive. Kou teaches “Further increasing the thickness will still improve the thermal conductivity” (¶69). One of ordinary skill is capable of selecting a design point to balance cost and performance. The Applicant acknowledges that Kou’s disclosed thickness is for a cigarette. Since the combination includes a heat conducting layer applied to the hair iron of Bayerle, the optimization would naturally arrive at a different thickness appropriate for a hair iron. An obvious combination does not mean that the features of a secondary reference are to be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. Rather, the rejection relies upon what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Regarding claim 3, the Applicant argues that the silver platinum electrode paste of Baudry is not applicable to the combination. Kou teaches “The sintering temperature is low (850～900℃), which can be used with low-temperature sintering electrode pastes such as silver paste, silver palladium paste, silver platinum paste, etc.” (¶57). Kou teaches that pastes appropriate for forming electrodes, i.e. electrical current supply for heating resistors, are also appropriate for forming the thermally conductive silver layer. Since Kou teaches no specific composition for the paste, one must turn to other references. Because Baudry teaches the silver-platinum paste for a current supply line, it is determined to be appropriate for the thermally conductive layer according to the teachings of Kou.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8, “the silver” should be corrected to –the layer of silver-- for consistent wording.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
No claim limitations are interpreted under 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 2-4 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites “the platinum improving adhesion of the thick-film printed layer to the ceramic substrate during sintering.” The original disclosure does not disclose any sintering, so does not support this limitation. The disclosure also does not describe this particular function of platinum. The specification does support “heating” (p.8) and “firing,” see p.10-12. The Applicant argues that the mere presence of platinum is not sufficient to support this claim limitation (see Remarks, filed 15 July 2026 at p.12-13) and that this limitation constitutes a “technical teaching” (Remarks, p.13).
Claim 4 recites sintering. The original disclosure does not disclose any sintering, so does not support this limitation. The specification does support “heating” (p.8) in relation to the claimed function.
Claim 9 recites “streets accommodating differential thermal expansion of the silver during thick-film printing and sintering.” The original disclosure does not disclose any sintering, nor differential thermal expansion, so does not support this limitation. The specification does support “heating” (p.8) and the function “prevent cracking.”
Claim 10 recites “streets that accommodate differential thermal expansion of the silver during thick-film printing and sintering.” The original disclosure does not disclose any sintering, nor differential thermal expansion, so does not support this limitation. The specification does support “heating” (p.8) and the function “prevent cracking.”
Claim 11 recites “streets that accommodate differential thermal expansion of the silver during thick-film printing and sintering.” The original disclosure does not disclose any sintering, nor differential thermal expansion, so does not support this limitation. The specification does support “heating” (p.8) and the function “prevent cracking.”
Claim 12 recites “streets that accommodate differential thermal expansion of the silver during thick-film printing and sintering.” The original disclosure does not disclose any sintering, nor differential thermal expansion, so does not support this limitation. The specification does support “heating” (p.8) and the function “prevent cracking.”
Claim 13 recites “streets that accommodate differential thermal expansion of the silver during thick-film printing and sintering.” The original disclosure does not disclose any sintering, nor differential thermal expansion, so does not support this limitation. The specification does support “heating” (p.8) and the function “prevent cracking.”
Claim 14 recites “streets that accommodate differential thermal expansion of the silver during thick-film printing and sintering.” The original disclosure does not disclose any sintering, nor differential thermal expansion, so does not support this limitation. The specification does support “heating” (p.8) and the function “prevent cracking.”
Claim 15 recites “streets that accommodate differential thermal expansion of the silver during thick-film printing and sintering.” The original disclosure does not disclose any sintering, nor differential thermal expansion, so does not support this limitation. The specification does support “heating” (p.8) and the function “prevent cracking.”
Claim 16 recites “streets… accommodating differential thermal expansion of the silver during thick-film printing and sintering.” The original disclosure does not disclose any sintering, nor differential thermal expansion, so does not support this limitation. The specification does support “heating” (p.8) and the function “prevent cracking.”
Claim 17 recites sintering. The original disclosure does not disclose any sintering, so does not support this limitation. The specification does support “heating” (p.8) in relation to the claimed function.
The remaining rejected claims are rejected for their dependence on an unsupported claim.
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.
Claims 3, 7, and 20 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.
The term “about” in claims 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, the composition in claim 3 is indefinite.
Claim 7 recites “a thickness of the layer of silver ranges is between 10 and 30 µm.” The phrase “ranges is” makes the claim unclear. For the purpose of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as and may be corrected to --a thickness of the layer of silver is between 10 and 30 µm--.
Claim 20 recites “a thickness of the layer of silver ranges between 10 and 30 µm.” The wording suggests that the thickness is different, e.g. variable across the surface, and covers the range from 10 to 30 µm. It appears the intent is to claim a thickness in a range from 10 µm to 30 µm. The meaning is not clear. For the purpose of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as and may be corrected to --a thickness of the layer of silver is between 10 and 30 µm--.
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 1, 2, and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayerle (US 2020/0253350) in view of Kou (CN 211431087).
PNG
media_image2.png
417
798
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Bayerle discloses:
A hair iron (100, ¶23), comprising:
a first arm (104, ¶24) and a second arm (106) movable relative to each other between an open position and a closed position (¶24);
one or both of the first and second arms having a heater (130, 132) for heating hair placed between the first and second arms during use (¶25), wherein the heater includes a ceramic substrate (160, ¶30) having a resistive trace (164, ¶31, on outer face according to ¶38) for heating upon connection to power, and
Bayerle does not disclose:
on a side of the ceramic substrate opposite the resistive trace, a thick-film printed layer of silver serving as a heat spreader to reduce thermal gradients across the ceramic substrate during use.
Bayerle teaches that the hair contact surface “may be formed directly by a surface of each heater 130, 132 or formed by a material covering each heater 130, 132, such as a shield or sleeve” (¶25).
Kou relates to the problem of temperature gradients in ceramic heaters (¶5) and is thus pertinent to the problem at hand. Kou teaches, for a ceramic resistance heater in an electronic cigarette, a ceramic substrate having a heat conducting layer of silver, silver-palladium, or silver-platinum (¶13) that is 10-15 µm thick (¶20). The silver layer is formed on the green ceramic body by dip coating or spray coating and sintering (¶18) or printing and sintering (¶50, ¶17, ¶57). “By attaching a thermally conductive layer with a thermal conductivity greater than that of the ceramic substrate to the outside of the ceramic substrate, the heat distribution on the surface of the ceramic heating element can be quickly balanced, making the surface temperature of the ceramic heating element uniform. At the same time, the presence of the thermally conductive layer reduces the requirement for the thermal conductivity of the ceramic substrate, allowing the use of low thermal conductivity materials, thereby reducing power consumption and reducing the temperature of the bonding wire area” (¶25). Silver is also a low temperature sintering material, which gives more options for the ceramic material (¶26). The temperature gradient is reduced (¶48-¶49). The silver layer may be a monolithic film or may not cover the whole area, and be formed as a mesh, with gaps to allow for different thermal expansion (¶54 “shrinkage”). Kou is not limited to the needle (cylindrical) heating elements; the “heat-conducting layer can also be added to a designated area on one or both sides of the plate-type heating element” (¶49).
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 hair iron of Bayerle by adding a coating of silver, silver-palladium, or silver-platinum to the plate-type heating surface, i.e. the hair contact surface of Bayerle, as taught by Kou, to obtain the benefit of uniform surface temperature.
Regarding claim 2, Bayerle as modified by the silver layer of Kou teaches:
the layer of silver is a composition of silver and platinum (Kou: ¶13), the platinum improving adhesion of the thick-film printed layer to the ceramic substrate during sintering (this implies contact of the platinum and the ceramic, which is achieved by the printing and sintering taught by Kou).
Regarding claim 4, Bayerle as modified by the silver layer of Kou does not explicitly teach:
the layer of silver covers the side of the ceramic substrate in a range of about 80% to about 95% of a surface area of said side, the uncovered portion of the surface area preventing cracking of the layer during thick-film printing and sintering.
Kou teaches either a monolithic layer or a layer with regular voids, such as a grid, to allow for differential thermal expansion during sintering and use (¶54). The arrangement with voids reduces the area over which the heat is evenly spread by the conductive silver layer. Kou teaches that the “product of the effective area ratio of the mesh and the thickness of the mesh is not less than the thickness of the heat-conducting layer without mesh” (¶22, see also ¶76). Thus, if the area of the conductive layer is decreased, the thickness must be increased to provide the heat conduction effect. Also, keeping thickness constant, the effective area ratio (area covered by the conductive layer) is a result effective area for the conduction effect, and the reduced temperature gradient across the heater.
According to MPEP § 2144.05 §II.A, 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). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the layer of silver cover about 80% to about 95% of the surface area of the ceramic substrate to reduce the temperature gradient because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. The voids, which are taught by Kou to avoid delamination between the thermally conductive, i.e. silver layer and the adjacent ceramic, would also achieve the function of preventing cracking by nature of their structure.
Regarding claim 5, Bayerle as modified by the silver layer of Kou does not teach:
the layer of silver includes a first silver sublayer thick-film printed directly on the ceramic substrate and a second silver sublayer thick-film printed on the first silver sublayer, the first and second silver sublayers together providing a combined thickness sufficient to spread heat across the ceramic substrate during use.
It has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP § 2144.04 §§ VI.B. The specification does not describe a new and unexpected result of having two layers.
MODIFICATION
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 hair iron of Bayerle as modified by the silver layer of Kou by forming the layer as two layers. Kou discloses that the thickness of the silver layer determines its ability to balance heat distribution (¶19, ¶52, ¶69, ¶71). Forming the layer as multiple layers would not interfere with the thickness requirement, so one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success by forming the layer as two layers. Note that Kou teaches “a heat-conducting layer can also be added to a designated area on one or both sides of the plate-type heating element” (¶49) and printing the silver layer on a ceramic material (¶16). Since Bayerle teaches a ceramic heating plate, the combination teaches printing the silver on the ceramic heating plate of Bayerle.
Regarding claim 6, Bayerle as modified by the silver layer of Kou does not explicitly teach:
each layer of the two layers of silver includes a thickness of about 10 to about 20 μm, providing a total combined silver thickness of 20 to 40 μm.
Kou explicitly teaches a thickness of 10-15 μm for pure silver, and also teaches that the layer may be a mixture of silver with platinum or palladium. Kou further teaches a requirement of that the product of the thermal conductivity of the thermally conductive layer and the thickness of the thermally conductive layer is greater than 5500 mW/K (¶19) and that a thicker layer provides improved ability to balance heat distribution (52). Silver has a thermal conductivity of about 429 W/mK. Platinum has a thermal conductivity of about 72 W/mk. Palladium has a thermal conductivity of about 75 W/mK.
MODIFICATION
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 hair iron of Bayerle as modified by the silver layer of Kou by forming each layer with a thickness of about 10 to about 20 μm. This is more than the explicitly taught total thickness of 10-15 μm for pure silver. The increased thickness is obvious to provide the required total product of thermal conductivity and thickness when using a mixture of silver with platinum or palladium, or it would be obvious to provide a thicker layer to improve the performance in balancing heat distribution (¶52, ¶69).
Regarding claim 7, Bayerle as modified by the silver layer of Kou teaches:
a thickness of the layer of silver ranges is between 10 and 30 μm (Kou: ¶20, 10–15 μm for silver, ¶19, ¶52, ¶69, ¶71).
Regarding claim 8, Bayerle as modified by the silver layer of Kou teaches:
the silver defines one or more patches of silver (¶76 “monolithic film” is one patch, “grid” is multiple patches).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayerle (US 2020/0253350) in view of Kou (CN 211431087), and further in view of Baudry (US 4,973,826).
Regarding claim 3, Bayerle as modified by the silver layer of Kou does not teach:
the composition is about 80% silver and about 20% platinum.
Kou teaches that the silver-platinum heat dissipation layer is the same material as the heating layer (¶50). Kou does not specify what portion of the heating layer, nor the specific composition of the heating layer. Using the same material makes logistics easier by reducing the number of materials that must be purchased or prepared.
Baudry teaches a heating element with a conducting compound formed of 80-100% silver and 20-0% platinum (see end of claim 11).
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 hair iron of Bayerle as modified by the silver layer of Kou by using s composition of about 80% silver and about 20% platinum because Baudry teaches that this is appropriate for a conductor of a heating (resistance) layer, and thus by the teaching of Kou is also appropriate for the heat conducting layer. Kou provides sufficient teaching to adapt the layer thickness to provide even heat distribution for various materials including this 80/20 mix (¶52, ¶69).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-20 are not rejected with prior art, because the prior art does not disclose the conductive layer “with streets between adjacent patches and between the patches and edges of the ceramic substrate, the streets accommodating differential thermal expansion of the silver during thick-film printing and sintering” in conjunction with the other claim limitations. However, all of these claims are rejected under 112(a).
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