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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/02/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-13, 16-17, and 21 are pending. Claims 13 and 16-17 remain withdrawn. Claims 4-5, 14-15, and 18-20 are canceled.
Claim amendments filed 10/02/2025 do not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121 because amendments have not been made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes, including all deletions relative to the prior claim set filed 05/06/2025. For example, claim 3 previously recited “a width of the printable material” in lines 2-3 and “a” has been replaced with “the” with no indication of the changes. Claim 6 previously included “the” prior to “forming,” as well as “previously” prior to “deposited layers,” which are now missing and are not shown as being deleted. Claim 7 has also been further amended relative to the prior claim set where the amendments are not marked.
In view of the amendment, filed 10/02/2025, the following rejections are withdrawn from the previous Office Action mailed 06/02/2025:
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), other than any maintained below
Prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103
New grounds of rejection are made in response to claim amendments.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 2, 10, and 21 is/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 requires that the width of the space between each bead of the first plurality of beads is about a width of the printable material. Amended claim 1 recites that the overlap between each bead of the second plurality of beads (deposited into a space between the adjacent beads of the first plurality of beads) and a portion of the deposited first plurality of beads is between 5-30%. The embodiment reflected by amended claim 1 is disclosed in Fig. 12 and its accompanying description in paras. [0136]-[0137] of the filed specification. In order to have the claimed overlap of 5-30%, a width of the space between beads of a given underlying/touching layer must be correspondingly smaller than a width of the subsequently deposited material. There is no disclosure of or explanation as to how a width of the space could be about a width of the printable material and the overlap as claimed could be as much as 30%. Accordingly, an embodiment as reflected by present claim 2 is not adequately supported by the original disclosure. Claim 10 depends from claim 2 and thus is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 21 requires that the first and second plurality of beads comprise a hexagon shape. Amended claim 1 recites that the overlap between each bead of the second plurality of beads and a portion of the deposited first plurality of beads is between 5-30% and a contact angle between adjacent beads is greater than 90 degrees. The embodiment reflected by amended claim 1 is disclosed in Fig. 12 and its accompanying description in paras. [0136]-[0137] of the filed specification. The disclosed embodiment directed to beads having a hexagon shape is reflected in Figs. 11A-D. This embodiment is not described as including the noted features of amended claim 1 and is instead described as being configured “to minimize overlap between adjacent beads” (filed spec [0076]). Accordingly, an embodiment as reflected by present claim 21 is not adequately supported by the original disclosure.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, 10-12, and 21 is/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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Amended claim 1 recites the limitation “the width of each bead” in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim does not define any bead widths and the limitation is unclear as to which beads are encompassed by “each bead” (e.g., each bead of the first plurality of beads, each bead of the second plurality of beads, all beads, etc.). Note that a “width” of a deposited bead of printable material could describe multiple different dimensions and could vary between various beads.
Amended claim 1 recites the limitation “a contact angle between adjacent beads is greater than 90 degrees” in line 16. The limitation is unclear in view of the specification as to what the “contact angle” is and how to measure this property. Note that the “adjacent beads” of the first layer are “spaced apart” according to the claim (i.e., not in contact), so the “contact angle between adjacent beads” of the noted limitation is interpreted as intending to reference a contact angle between beads of the second layer and underlying beads of the first layer. The specification recites the same limitation in para. [0137] with reference to Fig. 12 but does not provide clarification other than that there is bead-to-bead contact between beads of adjacent layers. For further examination, the limitation will be interpreted to reference a bead configuration corresponding to Fig. 12.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the width of the printable material" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the deposited layers" in line 2. Claim 1 includes a plurality of layers, such that the limitation is unclear as to whether it refers to all or some of the layers.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the width of the space between the beads of the same layer" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the width of the spaces between the plurality of beads of the second layer” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the shape of the first plurality of beads and the second plurality of beads.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The indicated dependent claims are rejected for the reasons provided above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saberton, US 20210154911 A1, in view of either of Lescoche et al., US 20250091014 A1, or Ozen et al., Exploring the Role of Manufacturing Parameters on Microstructure and Mechanical Properties in Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) Using PETG (2021).
Note that the claims have the effective filing date equal to the filing date of the instant application. The subject matter of independent claim 1 is not fully supported by the parent application of which the instant application is a CIP. See MPEP 2139.01(B).
PNG
media_image1.png
515
1148
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Saberton discloses a method for additively manufacturing an object (Abstract, [0021], [0023], Figs. 2-4) by fused deposition (by additive extrusion of beads of a liquid material from a nozzle, [0030], [0037]; see also that the invention pertains to 3D printing by fused filament fabrication, [0003], which is synonymous with fused deposition modeling as evidenced by the present specification in [0095]), comprising:
Depositing a first layer of a printable material (layer 12, Fig. 2, [0022]), the first layer comprising a first plurality of beads (beads 22 and 26, Fig. 2), each bead of the first plurality of beads being spaced apart from adjacent beads in the first layer by a space having a width (space between beads 22, 26 prior to deposition of next layer, Figs. 2-3);
Depositing a second layer of the printable material (depositing layer 14, Fig. 2), the second layer comprising a second plurality of beads (comprising beads directly above 24, 28, Fig. 2) deposited into and nesting in the spaces between adjacent beads of the first plurality of beads (deposited between and nesting within the spaces between beads 22 and 26 of the first layer, Fig. 2, in line with the “nesting” layers of instant Fig. 12), the second layer having a height offset about one-half a height of the deposited first layer of the printable material (vertically offset by about one-half the height of the first layer 12, Fig. 2);
Wherein depositing the second plurality of beads comprises depositing each bead of the second plurality of beads to have a portion that overlaps a portion of the deposited first plurality of beads (overlap of each bead of second layer with a portion of the first plurality of beads is depicted in Fig. 4, see below), and
PNG
media_image2.png
392
924
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Layer-by-layer forming additional layers of the printable material by alternating between a printing pattern of the first layer and the second layer (Figs. 2-4, see additional layers 16, 18, etc.).
Saberton clearly shows the overlap is greater than 0% (Figs. 2-4, esp. Fig. 4 showing overlap at rounded corners, see above). Saberton further discloses the goal of reducing the porosity of the finished part using the described configuration, and it would have been apparent that maintaining and/or increasing the overlap would directly reduce the porosity, as a result of the overlap minimizing the size of the pores/spaces between adjacent beads. Saberton is silent as to the overlap being between 5-30% of the width of each bead. However, the claimed overlap range is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Analogous 3D printing art Lescoche discloses printing beads with a similar staggered and nested configuration (e.g., Fig. 8C, 12B) and teaches that the overlap between material depositions is a parameter that is to be set by adjusting the offset d in the horizontal plane between consecutive courses of depositions ([0162]), where the overlap results in corresponding entanglement of material depositions by interleaving so as to avoid the creation of spaces or voids between material depositions ([0139]). Therefore, as the amount of entanglement/interleaving and corresponding reduction of spaces or voids are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the overlap, with said entanglement/interleaving increasing and the spaces/voids correspondingly decreasing as the overlap is increased, the precise overlap would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed overlap range cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the overlap of the beads in the method of Saberton to obtain the desired balance between the material interleaving and the void space (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223, MPEP 2144.05(II)).
Alternatively, in the analogous art, Ozen discloses 3D printing by FDM (Abstract). Ozen discloses that overlapping bridges the fibers in 3D printing to increase the contact area between adjacent fibers/beads, where overlap leads to improved component strengths, stronger fiber-to-fiber bonds, and decreased porosity (p. 1801, paragraph beginning “FDM is…”; pp. 1803-1804). Ozen similarly recognizes that higher overlap leads to more of the above results, while very high overlap can cause over-extrusion and distortion (pp. 1804, 1808), such that the precise overlap would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art. Ozen finds the results based on comparison of overlap ratios of 0%, 10%, and 20% and teaches that 10% and 20% overlap result in better adhesion, increased strength, and reduced porosity (pp. 1804, 1808-1809, 1811-1812) with no over-extrusion (p. 1804). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select at least the overlapping portion of the ranges for the overlap of Saberton in order to achieve an arrangement having better adhesion, higher strength, and reduced porosity, as taught by Ozen.
Regarding a contact angle between adjacent beads being greater than 90 degrees, the instant specification associates this feature with the arrangement of beads depicted in Fig. 12 (filed specification, [0137]). Accordingly, a contact angle between adjacent beads being greater than 90 degrees is defined as the resultant angle between adjacent beads deposited in the manner disclosed for the arrangement of Fig. 12. The method of Saberton as set forth above results in the nesting configuration of overlapping beads in line with the presently disclosed Fig. 12. As the prior art teaches the same steps and substantially the same resulting arrangement, the limitation directed to the corresponding characteristic is met as claimed. Since the prior art product appears to be substantially identical to the claimed product having the characteristic of a contact angle between adjacent beads being greater than 90 degrees, as set forth above, the burden of proving that the prior art does not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristic shifts to the Applicant. See MPEP 2112 (V).
Regarding claim 2, modified Saberton discloses the method of claim 1, and Saberton discloses the width of the space between each bead of the first plurality of beads is about a width of the printable material (Figs. 2-4). Note that the specification describes the term “about” as permitting standard variation as would be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art and can refer to values that fall within 25% in either direction of the stated reference value ([0089]-[0090]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Saberton discloses the method of claim 1, and Saberton discloses the width for the spacing between each bead of the first plurality of beads is less than a width of the printable material (Figs. 2-4).
Regarding claim 6, modified Saberton discloses the method of claim 1, and Saberton discloses the forming additional layers minimizes gaps between beads of previously deposited layers (Saberton Fig. 2 shows gaps minimized compared to Fig. 1; Figs. 3-4 also show gaps between beads of previously deposited layers minimized via the application of additional layers).
Regarding claim 7, modified Saberton discloses the method of claim 6. Saberton does not explicitly state that the gaps between beads of the deposited layers are less than 5% of the width of the space between beads of a same layer.
However, as set forth above, Saberton discloses the goal of reducing the porosity of the finished part using the described configuration, and achieving a small gap relative to the spacing width would predictably minimize the overall porosity as a result of any pores being smaller, as desired by Saberton. Saberton in view of either of Lescoche or Ozen as applied above for the combination of claim 1 includes the modified overlap that results in a minimized porosity. Where 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. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Since Saberton clearly depicts a much smaller closed gap relative to the spacing width (Fig. 4), discloses the desire to reduce porosity (i.e., minimize gaps), and the claimed relative gap size (near or approaching zero) is within the general conditions of the overlap according to the combination, then absent unexpected results obtained from the claimed gap size, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to specify the gaps between beads of the deposited layers being less than 5% of a width of the spacing between the beads of the same layer because it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select a gap size approaching and close to 0, i.e., less than 5% of the width of the spacing, in order to minimize the size of pores and achieve the low porosity configuration as desired by Saberton and taught by either of Lescoche or Ozen.
Furthermore, in evaluating the reduction of gaps or voids between beads of deposited layers as an effect of increasing the overlap (p. 1808), Ozen additionally discloses that 20% overlap results in nearly 0 porosity (pp. 1803, 1811). Accordingly, with the overlap as taught by Ozen as set forth above for claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further specify that any gaps between beads of the deposited layers are less than 5% of the width of the space between beads of a same layer since the resulting porosity would have been expected to approach zero.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saberton, US 20210154911 A1, in view of either of Lescoche et al., US 20250091014 A1, or Ozen et al., Exploring the Role of Manufacturing Parameters on Microstructure and Mechanical Properties in Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) Using PETG (2021), as applied to claim 1 above, with evidentiary support from Ozen et al., Exploring the Role of Manufacturing Parameters on Microstructure and Mechanical Properties in Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) Using PETG (2021).
Regarding claim 8, modified Saberton discloses the method of claim 1. Saberton is silent as to explicitly stating that the overlap between each bead of the plurality of beads of adjacent layers provides for an increase in a z-direction strength of the object.
Ozen discloses that overlapping strands, and the corresponding increase in contact area, leads to stronger bonds between the adjacent strands, lower porosity, and a resulting increased tensile strength (pp. 1801, 1808). As such, the claimed effect of an increase in a z-direction strength of the object would have been similarly expected based on the prior art’s disclosure of overlap, increased contact area between adjacent strands, and reduced porosity relative to a non-overlapped configuration (e.g., Saberton Figs. 2-4 vs Fig. 1, and [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to specify the overlap between each bead of the plurality of beads of adjacent layers provides for an increase in a z-direction strength of the object as an expected result of a process step positively recited and due to the fact that Saberton discloses the claimed configuration results in overlap, increased contact area, and a reduction in porosity of the finished part, which would have led to the characteristic of an increased strength in a z-direction, as supported by Ozen.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saberton, US 20210154911 A1, in view of either of Lescoche et al., US 20250091014 A1, or Ozen et al., Exploring the Role of Manufacturing Parameters on Microstructure and Mechanical Properties in Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) Using PETG (2021), as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Comb et al., US 20030056870 A1.
Regarding claim 10, modified Saberton discloses the method of claim 2. Saberton is silent as to specific dimensions of the layers and therefore does not disclose the height of the first layer is from about 50-500 µm.
In the analogous art, Comb discloses known road size parameters for fused deposition modeling (Abstract, [0078]). Comb teaches a road height, or layer height, of 0.007-0.013 inches (around 178-330 µm) was typical for fused deposition modeling systems ([0078]).
Since Saberton is silent as to specific values for the processing parameters, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to specify the height of the first layer was from about 50-500 µm, e.g., around 178-330 µm, in order to implement known process parameters for the fused deposition modeling-type additive manufacturing process with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 11-12, modified Saberton discloses the method of claim 1. Saberton is silent as to specific dimensions of the layers and therefore does not disclose the width of the spaces between the plurality of beads of the first or second layer is from about 200-1000 µm.
In the analogous art, Comb discloses known road size parameters for fused deposition modeling (Abstract, [0078]). Comb teaches a road width, or bead width, of 0.014-0.035 inches (around 355-889 µm) was typical for fused deposition modeling systems ([0078]).
Saberton discloses the width of the spacing between the beads of each layer is similar to and slightly less than the bead width to achieve the nested configuration (Figs. 2-4). Since Saberton is silent as to specific values for the processing parameters, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to specify the bead width of the first and second layer was within the known values of around 355-889 µm taught by Comb, such that the width of the spacing was also within and/or slightly less than these known bead widths, in order to implement known process parameters for the fused deposition modeling-type additive manufacturing process with a reasonable expectation of success. See also MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saberton, US 20210154911 A1, in view of either of Lescoche et al., US 20250091014 A1, or Ozen et al., Exploring the Role of Manufacturing Parameters on Microstructure and Mechanical Properties in Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) Using PETG (2021), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pyzik et al., US 20170246802 A1.
Regarding claim 21, modified Saberton discloses the method of claim 1. Saberton does not disclose the shape of the first plurality of beads and the second plurality of beads comprises a hexagon shape. Note that “the shape” with respect to 3D printed beads could refer to a number of different “shapes” (e.g., a cross-sectional shape of a given bead, an overall shape of an extruded strand, a layer shape, etc.).
In the analogous art of 3D printing (Abstract), Pyzik discloses a similar printing method (Figs. 3-6, [0064]) and teaches a cross-sectional shape of the layered extrudates having a useful polygonal shape such as a hexagon ([0070]). Pyzik evidences that a hexagonal cross-sectional shape was a known suitable alternative to an oval shape ([0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Saberton such that the shape of the first plurality of beads and the second plurality of beads comprises a hexagon shape as taught by Pyzik in place of an oval shape as a simple substitution of one known bead shape for another yielding predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(B). In this case, the beads of each reference served substantially the same function and were applied in substantially the same manner for either shape.
Furthermore, a change in shape of an element otherwise serving the same function has been held as a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). In this case, each bead shape was known, and the groups of beads of either shape serve the same function as groups of individual strands together forming an interconnected, packed structure in a nested, layered configuration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/02/2025 have been fully considered. To the extent the arguments are relevant to the present claim language and current rejections, the arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pp. 7-8) that Saberton does not describe either an overlap of beads in adjacent layers or a bead-to-bead contact angle. Applicant points to para. [0137] of the present specification (describing Fig. 12) as describing bead-to-bead contact and the claimed contact angle and Figs. 10A-10I showing reduced gaps between beads.
This argument is not found persuasive. Saberton clearly depicts an overlap between beads of adjacent layers in cited Fig. 4. Regarding the contact angle, Saberton depicts the same staggered/nested and overlapping arrangement of beads with a half-height vertical offset in Figs. 2-4 as shown in instant Fig. 12 associated with the claimed contact angle.
Applicant argues (pp. 8-9) that “Saberton does not explicitly refer to an ‘overlap’ (which can be viewed properly only in a plan view),” and that the Office’s mapping to the “overlap” in Saberton’s Fig. 4 refers to the fusing between beads depicted as intersecting arcs of the idealized oval shapes. Applicant states that “overlap” refers to an overlap of beads in z-direction adjacent layers. Applicant points to instant Figs. 10A-10I as describing the effect of overlap and particularly Fig. 10D, described as “as close to Saberton Figs. 2-4 as a photograph can be, compared to a diagram.” Applicant appears to argue that since the beads of this figure (of the present application ) have zero overlap then Saberton fails to teach or suggest the claimed overlap.
These arguments are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument related to a plan view appears misplaced. Saberton’s Figs. 2-4 show a cross-sectional view, where Fig. 4 explicitly depicts bead overlap between contacting beads of adjacent, stacked layers according to the disclosed method, with overlap being present in horizontal and vertical directions. It is unclear how Applicant considers this overlap to differ from “overlap” as claimed and as depicted in instant Fig. 12. Regarding Applicant’s reference to instant Figures 10A-10I, these bead arrangement reflect a different configuration than that presently claimed (i.e., there is no half-height offset or nesting layer arrangement). The depicted arrangement also differs from Saberton’s configuration in the same manner (no half-height offset/nesting). Accordingly, an argument that because instant Fig. 10d (an arrangement having no height offset and an intentional 0% overlap) has no overlap then Saberton’s Figs. 2-4 have no overlap has no basis and cannot be persuasive.
The rejection has been updated and supported with additional references to address the presently claimed overlap range.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20170225445 A1, Gardiner discloses relevant printing steps for achieving interlocking arrangements of beads, e.g., Figs. 23A-23C:
PNG
media_image3.png
225
612
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Mark et al., US 20160107379 A1, discloses an overlapping and nested configuration of 3D printed beads (Fig. 11B).
US 20230226748 A1, Sharma et al. disclose a printing configuration to form an airtight structure by a negative raster offset in the z-axis direction and/or with respect to the horizontal spacing ([0028], Fig. 8).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L GROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm ET.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754